BRUCE LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2005-02-16
No. 4D03-3019
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
896 So. 2d 812 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Bruce Lee Williams appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirmed his convictions and sentence, finding that while the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual felony offender based on insufficient prior convictions, the error was not preserved for appellate review under the applicable procedural rules.


Holding

The trial court erred in sentencing Williams as a habitual felony offender because his prior convictions were insufficient to subject him to habitualization under section 775.084, Florida Statutes. However, because Williams failed to preserve this sentencing error by objecting at the sentencing hearing or filing a rule 3.800(b) motion, and because the crime occurred after January 1, 2001 (the effective date of the procedural amendment), the error cannot be addressed on direct appeal.


Headnotes

[1] A sentencing error, such as improper habitual offender sentencing, is not preserved for direct appeal if not raised by objection at the sentencing hearing or in a subsequ…

[2] Convictions may be affirmed without prejudice as to any Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion.

Previewing 2 of 2 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

Key Quotes

“a sentencing issue that has not been raised in the trial court either by an objection at the sentencing hearing or in a subsequent rule 3.800(b) motion will not be addressed on direct appeal”

Establishes the procedural requirement for preserving sentencing issues on appeal after the January 1, 2001 amendment

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Williams was convicted in severed trials for second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At sentencing for the firearm conv…

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.


Opinion of the Court
POLEN, J.

POLEN, J.

We grant appellee’s Motion for Rehearing, and substitute the following corrected opinion for our slip opinion issued December 1, 2004.

Appellant, Bruce Lee Williams, raises three issues on appeal with regard to his convictions, from severed trials, for second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm his convictions without prejudice as to any Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion.

With regard to Williams’ sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the trial court erred by sentencing him as a habitual felony offender based upon his prior convictions, which are not sufficient to subject him to habitualization pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes. (2003). This error, however, was not preserved. While improper habitualization previously constituted a fundamental sentencing error which could have been addressed absent preservation, Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 94 (Fla.2000), explained that after the January 1, 2001, effective date of the amendment to rule 3.800(b) promulgated by the Supreme Court' in’ Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.UO, & 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999), reh. granted, 761 So. 2d 1025, a sentencing issue that has not been raised in the trial court either by an objection at the sentencing hearing or in a subsequent rule 3.800(b) motion will not be addressed on direct appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(e). Therefore, because Williams was convicted for a crime occurring after January 1, 2001, and he failed to preserve this sentencing error, we affirm his sentence.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • REY v. State, 904 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
    …tate, 776 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As to appellant’s argument that his scoresheet erroneously added points for legal status, we find no objection in the record and conclude that the claim must be collaterally challenged. Williams v. State, 896 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Affirmed, but remanded. POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw