RICHARD 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.
Richard Williams appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for methamphetamine trafficking. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal because Williams failed to allege that his offense occurred within the period established by Taylor v. State, which held the sentencing statute unconstitutional, though his claim may be refiled if properly pleaded.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Williams's motion without prejudice because he failed to affirmatively allege that his offense occurred within the "Taylor window"—the period when the unconstitutional statute was in effect—which is a necessary element of a facially sufficient claim under Rule 3.800(a).
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence must affirmatively allege facts demonstrating that the movant is entitled to relief.
[2] A statute violating the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution is unconstitutional.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If Mr. Williams's offense occurred within the Taylor window, he is entitled to be resentenced under the valid law in effect at the time of the offense.”
Establishes that defendants may be entitled to resentencing if their offenses occurred during the period when the unconstitutional statute was in effect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Williams was sentenced to a three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for trafficking in methamphetamine. He filed a Rule 3.800(a) mot…
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 Single Subject Rule (Fla. Const. Art. Iii, § 6) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*265] CASANUEVA, Judge.
Richard Williams challenges the order of the trial court dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Mr. Williams failed to present a facially sufficient claim, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice.
In his motion, Mr. Williams alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for trafficking in methamphetamine was illegally imposed. He based his claim on our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002). Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for the imposition of the mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In ruling on the motion, the trial court found that we had certified the question presented in Taylor to the supreme court, “which has neither answered the certified question nor denied jurisdiction of the case,” and that it would be “both proper under the circumstances and a prudent use of judicial resources” to dismiss Mr. Williams’s motion without prejudice to refiling it, pending resolution of the issue by the supreme court. Because the State on May 29, 2002, voluntarily dismissed its appeal in the supreme court, see 821 So. 2d 302, the issue is no longer pending there. Moreover, in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court has since held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions. Therefore, at the present time, Taylor is the law in this district.
If Mr. Williams’s offense occurred within the Taylor window, he is entitled to be resentenced under the valid law in effect at the time of the offense. See Green, 839 So. 2d 748. However, he failed to present a facially sufficient claim for relief under rule 3.800(a) since he failed to affirmatively allege that he committed the offense on a date within the Taylor window. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We therefore affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Mr. Williams might have to file a facially sufficient claim. Id.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Orosco v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Edrick Lee Hines v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)