STEVEN 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.
Steven Williams appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging his concurrent thirty-year sentences for two second-degree felony convictions of aggravated battery. The court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of his original claim that the sentences exceeded the statutory maximum, but permitted him to refile raising a new claim about oral pronouncement of the habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) designation.
The court affirmed the postconviction court's summary denial of Williams' original claim that his sentences exceeded the statutory maximum because he was properly sentenced as an HVFO. However, the court permitted Williams to refile his motion to raise the new claim regarding oral pronouncement of the HVFO sentence without it being considered successive.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) may be summarily denied if the record clearly shows the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum…
[2] A defendant sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender may receive sentences that exceed the statutory maximum for the underlying offense.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Williams was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).”
Establishes the legal basis for the sentences and defeats Williams' claim that they exceeded the statutory maximum
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 convicted of two counts of aggravated battery and received concurrent thirty-year sentences. The postconviction court determined that Wil…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*766] STRINGER, Judge.
Steven Williams appeals the summary-denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and his motion for rehearing. We affirm the postcon-viction court’s summary denial as it relates to the review of Williams’ originally stated claim.
In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Williams claims that his concurrent thirty-year sentences for two second-degree felony convictions of aggravated battery exceed the statutory maximum. In denying the claim, the postconviction court stated that Williams was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). The postconviction court attached to its order a copy of the judgment and sentence which reflects that Williams was sentenced as an HVFO on both counts of aggravated battery pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b).
Subsequently, Williams filed a motion for rehearing. While addressing the denial of the claim presented in his rule 3.800(a) motion, Williams also appeared to raise a new claim that the trial court did not orally pronounce the imposition of an HVFO sentence. The postconviction court denied the motion without specifically addressing this new claim. Consequently, we affirm the postconviction court’s orders without prejudice to any right Williams may have to refile a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising a claim that the trial court did not orally pronounce the imposition of an HVFO sentence. Such motion will not be considered successive.
Affirmed.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ., concur.