Williams v. State
182 So. 3d 11
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2004 Williams and two co-defendants followed a victim, blocked her car, and Williams shot the victim in the abdomen after demanding her bag. He was charged with attempted felony murder (count 1), attempted armed robbery (count 2), and conspiracy to commit armed robbery (count 3).
- Williams entered an open plea in 2008 to all three counts; he was sentenced to 50 years (with a 25-year minimum mandatory) on count 1 and concurrent 15-year terms on counts 2 and 3. The plea was supported by a State proffer and the victim’s testimony; defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis.
- On direct appeal Williams I affirmed the plea and sentence. Williams later filed a 3.850 postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for allowing entry of a plea to an information defective as to count 1 (the information allegedly used the same act for the attempted felony murder and the underlying attempted armed robbery).
- In Williams II the court concluded the claim was well taken and remanded to determine prejudice, reasoning that the facts could not support both attempted felony murder and attempted armed robbery and stating that no amendment could cure the defect.
- On remand the trial court, relying on Abbate, vacated Williams’ plea and all convictions and sentences. Williams appealed, arguing only count 1 should have been vacated; the court granted en banc review and reconsidered the prejudice analysis.
- The court held the attempted felony murder count was not fatally deficient because (a) the information tracked the statute and alleged a firearm discharge causing great bodily harm, (b) the State proffer and victim testimony supported an allegation that Williams intentionally shot the victim (an act not an essential element of the robbery), and (c) any defect could have been cured by amendment or a bill of particulars. Therefore Williams could not show Strickland prejudice and relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether only count 1 (attempted felony murder) should be vacated for ineffective assistance, or all counts | Williams: counsel was ineffective for allowing plea to an illegal information as to count 1; only count 1 should be vacated | State: even if count 1 were defective, amendment or particulars could cure it; no prejudice; vacating all counts was unwarranted | Held: Vacatur of all counts reversed; defendant cannot show Strickland prejudice and only count 1 (if at all) implicated, but relief otherwise denied |
| Whether count 1 sufficiently alleged an intentional act that was not an essential element of the underlying robbery | Williams: count 1 used the same act as count 2 (pointing the gun) so it failed to allege a separate intentional act | State: count 1 alleged discharge of a firearm causing great bodily harm; record and proffer support separate intentional act (shooting) | Held: Count 1 was legally sufficient as pled or readily curable by amendment; the record supports an allegation that Williams intentionally shot the victim |
| Whether the defect (if any) in the information constituted fundamental error "wholly failing to state a crime" | Williams: the defect rendered the information fatally flawed | State: the information tracked statutory language and cited the statute; it did not wholly fail to state a crime | Held: No fundamental error; information did not wholly fail to state a crime |
| Whether counsel’s alleged deficiency caused prejudice under Strickland | Williams: but for counsel’s failure, outcome would differ | State: no reasonable probability of a different outcome; amendment or clarification would have produced same plea/conviction | Held: No Strickland prejudice; outcome would have been the same and relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. State, 83 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 2012) (earlier opinion concluding defect and remanding to determine prejudice)
- Battle v. State, 911 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2005) (explaining attempted felony murder requires an intentional act not an essential element of the underlying felony)
- Abbate v. State, 82 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (remedy discussion relied upon by trial court on remand)
- Blanton v. State, 821 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (discussing sufficiency of allegations regarding distinct intentional acts in attempted felony murder)
- Williams v. State, 36 So. 3d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (Williams I affirming plea and sentence)
- Taylor v. State, 140 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2014) (court’s jurisdiction cited)