From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 22, 2000
773 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 2D00-4247.

Opinion filed November 22, 2000.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Chet A. Tharpe, Judge.


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 to relief under Heggs.

We affirm the trial court's order without prejudice to Williams to file a facially sufficient motion alleging entitlement to relief under Heggs. Should he do so and should the trial court again deny relief, the trial court must attach all documents necessary to support its conclusion.See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Parker, A.C.J., and Northcutt and Salcines, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 22, 2000
773 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:BOBBY LEE WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 22, 2000

Citations

773 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Murph v. State

A motion to correct illegal sentence that does not assert any facts or law to support a claim for relief is…