State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 11 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 79260,79260 |
| Citation | 599 So.2d 998 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Brian Tullis WILLIAMS, Respondent. 599 So.2d 998, 17 Fla. L. Week. S355 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance, First District--Case No. 90-1335 (Escambia County).
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for respondent.
We quash the decision of the district court in Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), on the authority of State v. Barnes, 595 So.2d 22 (Fla.1992), 1 and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Barnes.
It is so ordered.
1 The 1989 amendment to section 775.084(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), did not change the plain meaning of the statute.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. State, 92-2141
...a habitual felony offender sentence is illegal. Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 948, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), quashed on other grounds, 599 So.2d 998 (Fla.1992). Moreover, no contemporaneous objection is required to appeal from an illegal sentence. Id. at 950. Finally, the fact that appellant ......
-
Speights v. State, 97-2964
...605 So.2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Williams v. State, 591 So.2d 948, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), quashed on other grounds, 599 So.2d 998 (Fla.1992) ("Without the necessary predicate convictions appellant's sentence as a habitual offender is illegal. No objection is required to raise the......
-
Williams v. State, 90-1335
...the trial court's order which sentenced appellant as an habitual offender. The supreme court quashed our decision in State v. Williams, 599 So.2d 998 (Fla.1992). We have reviewed the issues raised by appellant, including the issue we did not previously address. We affirm the trial court on ......