ADRIAN A. WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Adrian Williams appeals the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence for fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to timely rule on Williams's motion to correct sentencing errors, and the State conceded that the trial court improperly failed to credit Williams's prior probation time and imposed an unconstitutional warrantless search condition.
The court reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to enter an amended judgment consistent with Waters v. State by crediting all prior probation time served and eliminating the unconstitutional warrantless search condition as a special condition of probation.
[1] An order granting a motion to correct sentencing error under Fla. …
[2] Upon revocation of probation, the trial court must credit the defendant with time previously served on probation when calculating whether the total sentence exceeds the s…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 the trial court includes probation as part of a sentence, upon revocation of probation, it must give the defendant credit for all time previously served on probation if the new period of probation together with other sanctions—including jail and prison credit—and the time previously served on probation total more than the statutory maximum for the underlying offense”
Establishes the legal requirement that prior probation time must be credited when the total sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was serving probation for a third-degree felony of fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer. After his probation was revoked, the trial …
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 Concession Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-2767 Lower Tribunal No. CF18-004153-XX
_____________________________
ADRIAN A. WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
Sharon M. Franklin, Judge. December 20, 2024
ON CONCESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
Adrian Williams appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court after the revocation of his earlier term of probation that he was serving for his offense of fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer, a third-degree felony. Following the revocation, the trial court sentenced Williams to serve 364 days in the county jail, to be followed by a new three-year term of probation.
Prior to filing his initial brief in this direct appeal, Williams filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct two sentencing errors. First, Williams asserted that his current split sentence was unlawful because it exceeded the sixty-month statutory cap for his crime, as he was not given credit for the time that he had previously served in the case on probation and in jail or prison.1 See Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1995) (holding that if the trial court includes probation as part of a sentence, upon revocation of probation, it must give the defendant credit for all time previously served on probation if the new period of probation together with other sanctions—including jail and prison credit—
and the time previously served on probation total more than the statutory maximum for the underlying offense). As a result, Williams argued that his total sentence was approximately sixty-four months.
Second, Williams asserted that the special condition of his probation that required that he consent to random warrantless searches and seizures by law enforcement officers was unlawful and unconstitutional. See Grubbs v. State, 373
So. 2d 905, 909 (Fla. 1979) (holding that while a warrantless search of a probationer by the probation officer is allowed, this general authority does not extend to all law enforcement officers and requiring a defendant, as a condition of probation, to
consent to random warrantless searches by law enforcement officers violates the federal and Florida constitutional proscriptions against unreasonable searches and seizures).
The trial court, in fact, granted Williams’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion; however,
it did not do so within sixty days from when Williams filed the motion. Resultingly,
by law, the motion is deemed denied; and the order granting Williams’s motion is a nullity. See Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“The trial court did not rule on the [rule 3.800(b)(2)] motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days and it was therefore deemed denied by the passage of time.”) (citation omitted); Andrillon v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2249 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov.
8, 2024) (holding that “[a]lthough the trial court did enter an order granting [the appellant’s] motion, it did not do so within sixty days of the motion” and therefore,
“under [rule 3.800(b)(2)], the motion is deemed denied and the order is a nullity” (internal citations omitted)).
The State has filed a notice conceding that the trial court erred by effectively denying Williams’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. We accept and agree with the State’s concession of error.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence and remand with directions that following issuance of our mandate, the trial court enter an amended judgment and order of probation that is consistent with Waters. We also direct that this amended order of probation not include as a special condition of probation that
Williams be required to consent to random warrantless searches and seizures by law enforcement officers.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions. WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur. Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia M. Winterkorn, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2249 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1995)
- Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
- Williams v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2249 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)