CHARLES WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2009-11-13
No. 2D08-4976
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
20 So. 3d 1026 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2009)

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.


Holding

The court reversed the sentence because the State conceded error in the trial court's resentencing of the defendant.


Facts & Procedural History

Charles Williams was convicted of several offenses and later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court granted the motion and res…

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
DAVIS, Judge.

DAVIS, Judge.

Charles Williams challenges the sentence he received as a result of the trial court’s granting of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Based on the State’s concession of error, we reverse.

Mr. Williams was found guilty of resisting an officer with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed sentence on January 6, 2003. In 2007, Mr. Williams filed his motion to correct illegal sentence, successfully challenging the sentences imposed on the counts of resisting an officer with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The State properly has conceded that the trial court erred in re-sentencing Mr. Williams. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the sentences imposed at resentencing on the resisting with violence and battery counts and enter amended sentencing documents to reflect concurrent five-year prison releasee reof-fender terms as to these two counts.

We note that based on the State’s concession and our reversal, we need not address the additional issue raised by Mr. Williams on appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw