CHRISTOPHER 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.
Christopher Williams appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion. The trial court denied it as untimely, but the appellate court found that certain illegal sentence claims could have been raised under Rule 3.800(a) and should have been considered. The court affirmed the denial on the merits but without prejudice to refiling.
The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 3.850 claims as untimely. However, the court held that illegal sentence claims such as those regarding credit for time served could have been properly raised under Rule 3.800(a) and should have been considered by the trial court. The specific claim regarding credit for time served was facially insufficient because Williams failed to specify the type and amount of credit sought and failed to allege reviewability from the face of the record.
[1] A trial court must consider claims of illegal sentences that could be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), even if raised in a motion filed under Flo…
[2] A claim for jail credit is facially insufficient if the movant fails to specify the amount of time sought and allege that the claim is reviewable from the face of the rec…
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“where movant files properly pleaded postconviction claim but incorrectly styles postconviction motion in which it is raised, trial court must treat claims as if filed in properly pleaded motion”
Establishes that trial courts must consider substantively proper claims even if procedurally miscategorized
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Williams was resentenced pursuant to a prior appellate mandate in Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In ground eighteen of his …
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*390] CASANUEVA, Judge.
Christopher Williams challenges the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it was untimely filed. We affirm the denial of the rule 3.850 claims contained in the motion on that basis. However, in several of the grounds of the motion, Mr. Williams raised illegal sentence claims that could also be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and therefore would not be barred by the two-year time limitation. The trial court erroneously failed to consider these claims. See Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that where movant files properly pleaded postconviction claim but incorrectly styles postconviction motion in which it is raised, trial court must treat claims as if filed in properly pleaded motion). We have considered the illegal sentence claims on their merits and affirm the denial of these claims. We discuss only his claim regarding credit for time served.
Mr. Williams was resentenced in this ease pursuant to our mandate in Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In ground eighteen of his motion, he alleged that the trial court did not properly award him credit for the “time served on sentence prior to resentencing.” Mr. Williams failed to specify whether he was seeking prison and/or jail credit and, if jail credit, how much time he was entitled to. Furthermore, he failed to allege that any jail credit claim is reviewable from the face of the record, and the claim is therefore facially insufficient. See Joeb v. State, 822 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. Williams has to file a facially sufficient motion for prison and/or jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed without prejudice.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 868 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…e 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order. Williams failed to allege that his jail credit claim could be determined from the face of the record, and he therefore failed to present a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim. See Williams v. State, 848 So. 2d 389, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We note that Williams’ motion was directed to trial court case numbers 93-2285 and 93-2286, whereas the body of the trial court’s order denied jail credit on trial court case numbers 00-383 and 00-884. Our affirmance is with…
Authorities Cited
- Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Williams v. State, 658 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Joeb v. State, 822 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)