Anthony Jamal Williams v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anthony Jamal Williams v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 2024

Docket4D2023-0987

StatusPublished

This text of Anthony Jamal Williams v. State of Florida (Anthony Jamal Williams v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Jamal Williams v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY JAMAL WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0987

[September 4, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CF003831AXXXMB.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Louis G. Carres, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for first- degree murder with a firearm, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, and robbery with a firearm. The defendant’s first two arguments challenge certain rulings related to his convictions. Those arguments lack merit without further discussion. Thus, we affirm the convictions.

The defendant’s third argument claims the circuit court erred in sentencing him on the first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder counts to life imprisonment without providing for sentence review, where the defendant was a juvenile when he committed the crimes, and the jury expressly found the state had not proven the defendant had “actually killed,” “intended to kill,” or “attempted to kill” the victim. The state concedes the circuit court erred in not providing for sentence review.

We agree with the state’s concession of error. See § 921.1402(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“A juvenile offender sentenced to a term of more than 15 years under s. 775.082(1)(b)2., s. 775.082(3)(a)5.b., or s. 775.082(3)(b)2.b. is entitled to a review of his or her sentence after 15 years.”). Based on the foregoing, we remand for the ministerial act of correcting the sentences on counts one and two to show that the defendant is entitled to sentence review after fifteen years. The defendant need not be present for these ministerial corrections.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for correction of sentences.

CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY JAMAL WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0987

[September 4, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CF003831AXXXMB.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Louis G. Carres, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for first- degree murder with a firearm, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, and robbery with a firearm. The defendant’s first two arguments challenge certain rulings related to his convictions. Those arguments lack merit without further discussion. Thus, we affirm the convictions.

The defendant’s third argument claims the circuit court erred in sentencing him on the first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder counts to life imprisonment without providing for sentence review, where the defendant was a juvenile when he committed the crimes, and the jury expressly found the state had not proven the defendant had “actually killed,” “intended to kill,” or “attempted to kill” the victim. The state concedes the circuit court erred in not providing for sentence review.

We agree with the state’s concession of error. See § 921.1402(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“A juvenile offender sentenced to a term of more than 15 years under s. 775.082(1)(b)2., s. 775.082(3)(a)5.b., or s. 775.082(3)(b)2.b. is entitled to a review of his or her sentence after 15 years.”). Based on the foregoing, we remand for the ministerial act of correcting the sentences on counts one and two to show that the defendant is entitled to sentence review after fifteen years. The defendant need not be present for these ministerial corrections.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for correction of sentences.

CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anthony Jamal Williams v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-jamal-williams-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2024.