Legal Opinion

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 22, 2000No. 2D00-4247PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Bobby Lee Williams appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm without prejudice to Williams to file a facially sufficient motion.

Williams’ motion claims that he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). However, his motion contains no facts or attachments to support that he is entitled to such relief. Such a motion is facially insufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b). In addition, the trial court’s order denying Williams’ motion has no attachments to support its conclusion that Williams is not entitled…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Heggs v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  2. Smith v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Williams v. Atlantic Sugar Ass'n, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  2. Murph v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API