CURTIS LEE 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.
Curtis Lee Williams appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and life sentence for robbery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that the arguments raised in his post-conviction motion either were already addressed on direct appeal or lacked evidentiary support.
The appellate court held that all eight points raised by Williams in his motion to vacate were without merit because they were either already raised and rejected on direct appeal or the appellant had sufficient opportunity to raise them on direct appeal. Points not addressed on direct appeal lacked corroboration and were based only on unsupported allegations.
[1] A motion to vacate conviction and sentence pursuant to RCrP 3.850 is subject to review on appeal after denial by the trial court.
[2] An appellate court may affirm the denial of a motion to vacate conviction and sentence if the points raised were previously addressed on direct appeal or could have been…
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“We have concluded that each of the points raised by appellant is without merit for the reason that the said points were raised on appellant's direct appeal, or that he had sufficient and ample opportunity to raise them in his direct appeal.”
States the court's primary rationale for rejecting all eight points raised in the post-conviction motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with robbery, tried, and convicted. He was sentenced to life in prison and represented by private counsel at trial. His direct ap…
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 Direct Appeal Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Curtis Lee Williams, a/k/a Curtis Bundle, was charged with robbery, tried and convicted. Appellant was sentenced to the state penitentiary for the term of his natural life. During the trial proceeding appellant was represented by private counsel.
Appellant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed by this court in Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So.2d 795. After the foregoing-proceeding for relief had terminated adversely against appellant, he filed in the trial court a motion to vacate conviction and sentence pursuant to RCrP 3.850, 33 F.S.A. On September 25, 1972, the trial court entered an order denying appellant’s motion for relief.
Subsequently, on October 25, 1972, notice of appeal was filed to this court to review the trial court’s order. Appellant’s counsel, an assistant public defender, requested to be relieved as attorney for appellant under the rationale of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. The record shows that the assistant public defender, on March 13, 1973, served a copy of this brief on appellant by certified mail. Further, the record discloses that the clerk of this court, on March 26, 1973, entered an order advising appellant that in 30 days, if he so desired, he could file a brief with this court submitting any matter that he deemed advisable in connection with this appeal. To date we have not received a brief or response from appellant.
In his Anders brief, the assistant public defender requested that this court review appellant’s brief, pro se, filed in the trial court pursuant to his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.
We have very carefully examined the eight points raised by appellant in his brief filed pro se before the trial court seeking to vacate and set aside his judgment and sentence. We have likewise, with equal diligence, examined the entire record and briefs in the case previously before this court. Williams v. State, supra.
We have concluded that each of the points raised by appellant is without merit for the reason that the said points were raised on appellant’s direct appeal, or that he had sufficient and ample opportunity to raise them in his direct appeal.
The points not specifically involved in the direct appeal, but under review here, are completely uncorroborated and unsubstantiated and are only based upon appellant’s averments.
Accordingly, we
Affirm.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
MANN, C. J., concurs in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Morse Shores Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Whitney, 259 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Joe J. Bacon, Jr. v. Honorable Jack M. Turner, 259 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)