Background
Stacey Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery. He later petitioned the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County to consolidate his two sentences.
The trial court treated the petition as a motion to correct an illegal sentence and denied it. Williams appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial in a per curiam opinion.
The court cited section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2026), which addresses whether sentences are served concurrently or consecutively depending on whether the offenses were charged in the same charging document and whether the sentencing court directs otherwise. The opinion supplied no further reasoning or facts about Williams’s charging documents or existing sentence structure.
Key Takeaways
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of Williams’s request to consolidate his two sentences.
- The trial court had treated Williams’s petition as a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
- The decision relied solely on a citation to Florida’s statute governing concurrent and consecutive sentences and did not elaborate on its application to Williams’s sentences.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights section 921.16(1) as the governing statutory provision when a Florida defendant seeks to alter how multiple prison sentences operate. Because the opinion is brief and does not describe Williams’s charging documents or current sentence structure, its stated precedential guidance is limited to the affirmance and the cited statutory framework.