Bradley A. Williams v. State
215 So. 3d 642
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Williams entered a plea under a plea agreement; the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him accordingly.
- Williams filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l), and also filed two pro se rule 3.850 postconviction motions before the trial court ruled on the 3.170(l) motion.
- The trial court denied all three motions in a single omnibus order; Williams appealed and this court affirmed without opinion.
- Williams petitioned the Fifth DCA under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d) alleging appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising certain issues on direct appeal.
- The central legal question was whether the trial court should have dismissed the premature rule 3.850 motions (filed while judgment was not final) rather than denying them on the merits, and whether appellate counsel’s failure to raise that error was ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying Williams’s rule 3.850 motions without first allowing amendment | Williams: Rule 3.850 motions were prematurely decided; court should have allowed amendment or dismissed without prejudice because judgment was not final | State: (Implicit) The omnibus denial was proper and no reversible error in adjudicating the motions together | Court: Held the rule 3.850 motions were premature and should have been dismissed without prejudice; appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising this on appeal |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on rule 3.850 motions filed before the judgment was final | Williams: Court lacked jurisdiction (substantively argued that motions should not have been addressed while 3.170(l) motion suspended rendition) | State: (Implicit) Court processed and denied the motions; no jurisdictional defect requiring reversal | Court: Treating it as a timing/merits issue, the motions were premature because judgment was not final; the court should have dismissed them without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard for counsel)
- Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2000) (appellate ineffective-assistance standard parallels Strickland)
- Wilson v. State, 128 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (timely 3.170(l) suspends rendition; 3.850 cannot be considered until judgment is final)
- Camon v. State, 57 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (improper to adjudicate a 3.850 motion before judgment is final)
- Brigham v. State, 950 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (judgment must be final before 3.850 motion is filed)
- Mingo v. State, 790 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finality for 3.850 timing tied to expiration of appeal period)
Decision: Petition granted; court directed the trial court to vacate the portions of the omnibus order denying the two rule 3.850 motions and to dismiss those motions without prejudice, permitting Williams to timely refile within two years of the issuance of the mandate if done in good faith.