J'GERRARD P. WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The trial court did not err in imposing a consecutive sentence in the second case, and Williams is not entitled to relief under Rule 3.800(a) or habeas corpus.
[1] A consecutive sentence imposed across two related criminal cases does not constitute fundamental error on postconviction review when the trial court possessed discretion…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted in two separate but related criminal cases. The trial court imposed a consecutive sentence in the second case rather than concu…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
CONNER, J.
On the same day, J’Gerrard P. Williams simultaneously filed an appeal of the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the appeal and the petition, Williams contends that the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence in the second of two separate but related cases, arguing the crimes in both cases were part of one extended criminal episode. He also contends that the consecutive sentence constitutes fundamental error because the trial court mistakenly thought it did not have discretion to impose a sentence concurrent with the prior case. We consolidated the appeal and the petition into one appellate proceeding.
Having reviewed the record and arguments presented, we affirm the denial of relief under rule 3.800(a) and deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without further comment.
Affirmed and petition denied.
FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.