Wiley v. State, 91-3321
| Decision Date | 29 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-3321,91-3321 |
| Citation | 604 So.2d 6 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D1850 George WILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George Wiley, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
George Wiley (appellant) seeks review of an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. Although the motion was designated a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, the trial court properly treated it as a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without prejudice to appellant's right to file a second motion articulating a basis for relief, if he is able to do so.
Appellant was charged in a 3-count information with robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled nolo contendere to all three counts, and was sentenced to three concurrent 15-year terms of incarceration, with three mandatory minimum 3-year terms for use of a firearm, the mandatory sentences to run consecutively. As grounds for relief, appellant claimed a double jeopardy violation, asserting that all of the charged offenses occurred in the course of one criminal episode, and thus should have been charged as one crime. The trial court denied relief, finding that appellant was patently wrong in contending he could receive only one sentence under one case number, as was his contention that he should receive a single sentence for multiple crimes occurring during a single transaction. We agree.
Motions to correct an illegal sentence may be filed pursuant to either rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850. Yates v. State, 556 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, double jeopardy arguments of the sort appellant advanced in this case are challenges to convictions, not sentences, and thus are not cognizable under rule 3.800; rather, they must be pursued by rule 3.850. Ferenc v. State, 563 So.2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So.2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Therefore, it was properly treated as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 by the trial court.
As presently stated, the allegations of the motion are facially insufficient to demonstrate a basis for relief. Mitchell v. State, 581 So.2d 990, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Nevertheless, appellant may have a valid complaint concerning imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples v. Sec'y, Dep't. of Corr.
... ... U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and challenges the validity of ... his state conviction for manslaughter with a weapon, for ... which Mr. Peoples serves thirty years' ... for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction. Wiley ... ...
-
DeSpain v. State
...a * * * motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence. This is a consistent concept in Florida. Wiley v. State, 604 So.2d 6 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992); State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990). See generally United States v. Atkins, 834 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1987) (c......
-
Echeverria v. State
...556 So.2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), when the motion attacks the conviction it must be brought under rule 3.850. Wiley v. State, 604 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Ferenc v. State, 563 So.2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gandy v. State, 560 So.2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. ......
-
Birr v. State, 93-225
...precedent cited points to the opposite conclusion. Specifically, DeSpain cites non-binding Florida cases. Id. at 588. See, Wiley v. State, 604 So.2d 6 (Fla.App.1992); Plowman v. State, 586 So.2d 454 (Fla.App.1991); and State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051 (Fla.App.1990). The Florida cases provid......