ROBERT 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.
The court affirmed the denial of ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct claims but reversed the trial court's dismissal of an illegal sentence claim as successive, remanding for consideration of whether a six-year split sentence for a third-degree felony exceeded the statutory five-year maximum.
A trial court errs in dismissing an illegal sentence claim as successive when the record does not show the appellant previously raised that specific claim.
[1] An illegal sentence claim that was not previously raised in a prior rule 3.850 motion is not successive and must be addressed on the merits rather than dismissed as a suc…
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 intelligence“the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony is five years”
Court explaining why the illegal sentence claim appears to have merit
Williams was sentenced to a six-year split sentence (three years imprisonment followed by three years probation) for third-degree felony convictions. …
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 Successive Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has appealed an order denying what appears to be a second rule 3.850 motion in which he raises two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, one claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and one claim of an illegal sentence due to the trial court’s sentencing him to a six-year split sentence of three years’ imprisonment to be followed by three years’ probation for third-degree felony convictions. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the claims of ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct. However, the appellant’s claim challenging the six-year split sentence appears to have merit since the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony is five years. See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2004). Along with the other three claims, the trial court denied the illegal sentence claim as successive and, to support its ruling, attached a December 2006 order indicating that the appellant had raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a previous rule 3.850 motion. The record does not indicate that the appellant had previously raised the illegal sentence claim. As such, the trial court erred in determining it was successive. Therefore, we treat the illegal sentence claim as having been filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), see Robinson v. State, 916 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and remand for the trial court to address the merits of this claim. See Weeks v. State, 696 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
BENTON, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Weeks v. State, 696 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Ceceilia LEE v. Campbell, 916 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)