WILLIAM RAY WILLIAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court must address the discrepancy between the plea agreement's expected sentence and the actual time served due to forfeited gain-time.
Williamson pleaded guilty to violating probation based on an understanding he would serve thirteen months. The Department of Corrections informed him …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
William Ray Williamson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion as to his second and third claims, but we reverse and remand as to his first claim.
On March 11, 1994, a jury convicted Williamson of grand theft (count one) and arson (count two). The court sentenced him on count one to sixty months in prison to be suspended after forty-two months with the last eighteen months to be served on probation. On count two, the court sentenced him to a concurrent sentence of sixty months in prison to be suspended after forty-two months followed by ten years’ probation. Williamson subsequently violated his probation, and the trial court sentenced him on both counts to sixty months in prison to be suspended after fifty-five months with credit for time previously served in prison.
In his motion, Williamson claims that he entered his plea to the violation of probation with the understanding that he would only serve thirteen months in prison. He claims that the Department of Corrections (DOC) informed him that, even with credit for time previously served in prison, he will end up serving thirty months in prison due to forfeited gain-time. The record provided by the trial court does not refute Williamson’s claim but actually confirms that the court and Williamson contemplated that he would only serve thirteen months in prison. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either resentence Williamson in a manner that effectuates the intent of the plea agreement after considering the DOC’s forfeiture of gain-time or allow him to withdraw his plea. See Wallace v. State, 793 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SILBERMAN and CANADY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canty v. State, 884 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…the DOC’s forfeiture of gain time has resulted in a longer sentence than that agreed upon, Canty may be entitled to relief by filing a timely, facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Either way, Canty is not entitled to relief under rule 3.800(a), and we affirm the denial of his motion without prejudice to [*125] any right he may have to seek the appropriate relief. Affirmed. WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ„ co…
-
Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…Instead, we now hold that appellant has stated a colorable claim of entitlement to enforcement of his plea agreement. See Garvin v. State, 884 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); State v. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the trial court records refuting appellant’s claim of entitlement to enforcement of…
-
Youngblood v. State, 930 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…d defense counsel advised him that he would be transported to the Department of Corrections (DOC) only as a formality and would not have to actually serve a prison sentence due to his previously earned pris [*853] on credit. See Williamson v. State, 841 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding when DOC’s cancellation of credits conflicts with the intent of the plea agreement, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced in such a way that the intent of the negotiated plea is followed or to withdraw his plea). We…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Wallace v. State, 793 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)