Williams v. State, 2D03-182.
| Decision Date | 20 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-182.,2D03-182. |
| Parties | Christopher WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Christopher Williams challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it was untimely filed. We affirm the denial of the rule 3.850 claims contained in the motion on that basis. However, in several of the grounds of the motion, Mr. Williams raised illegal sentence claims that could also be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and therefore would not be barred by the two-year time limitation. The trial court erroneously failed to consider these claims. See Gill v. State, 829 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
(). We have considered the illegal sentence claims on their merits and affirm the denial of these claims. We discuss only his claim regarding credit for time served.
Mr. Williams was resentenced in this case pursuant to our mandate in Williams v. State, 658 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In ground eighteen of his motion, he alleged that the trial court did not properly award him credit for the "time served on sentence prior to resentencing." Mr. Williams failed to specify whether he was seeking prison and/or jail credit and, if jail credit, how much time he was entitled to. Furthermore, he failed to allege that any jail credit claim is reviewable from the face of the record, and the claim is therefore facially insufficient. See Joeb v. State, 822 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. Williams has to file a facially sufficient motion for prison and/or jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a).
Affirmed without prejudice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veal v. State
...v. State, 985 So.2d 972, 975 (Ala. Crim.App.2007); Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519, 785 S.W.2d 212, 213 (1990); Williams v. State, 848 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.2003); Housley v. State, 119 Idaho 885, 811 P.2d 495, 499 (Idaho Ct. App.1991); State v. Parker, 711 So.2d 694, 694-95 (La.......
-
Williams v. State, 2D03-3624.
...from the face of the record, and he therefore failed to present a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim. See Williams v. State, 848 So.2d 389, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We note that Williams' motion was directed to trial court case numbers 93-2285 and 93-2286, whereas the body of the trial ......
- Bishop v. Moore