ERIC O. WILLIAMS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed summary denial of ineffective assistance of counsel motion under Rule 3.850 because the motion failed to allege that counsel's errors would have prevented the no-contest plea, but allowed refiling within thirty days despite the two-year statutory deadline having expired.
A Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is facially insufficient when it fails to allege that but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded no contest.
[1] A Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must allege that but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded no contest to be facially s…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEric O. Williams filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging four actions by trial counsel constituted ineffective assistan…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Eric O. Williams appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court ruled the motion was facially insufficient. We affirm. Williams listed four actions by trial counsel that he alleged constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree with the trial court’s ruling that Williams’ sworn motion is facially insufficient because it fails to allege that but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded no contest. See Davis v. State, 697 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Richardson v. State, 829 So. 2d 364, 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
We affirm without prejudice to Williams’ right to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. Because the two-year limit for filing rule 3.850 motions expired while this motion was pending, we direct that Williams may file another rule 3.850 motion within thirty days of the date of this court’s mandate, and the trial court shall not deem it untimely or deem it successive based upon the motion Williams filed in this proceeding. See Lewis v. State, 777 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Lanier v. State, 800 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Affirmed.
FULMER and KELLY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosado v. State, 22 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…the defendant would not have entered the plea, the defendant should be given at least one opportunity to reffle his motion to correct the insufficiency, if he can do so in good faith. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007); Williams v. State, 844 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the summary denial in part. We affirm the summary denial as to the balance of the motion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. POLEN, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Heath v. State, 968 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…) (citing Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1182 (Fla.2004)). We affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Heath might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion raising the same claims. See Williams v. State, 844 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Because the two-year time limitation for filing rule 3.850 motions expired while the present motion was pending, Heath may file a facially sufficient motion within thirty days from the date the mandate issues in this appeal,…
Authorities Cited
- Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Davis v. State, 697 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Lewis v. State, 777 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Richardson v. State, 829 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Dominguez v. State, 800 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)