Williams v. State

Gary Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 5, 2006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-04-05

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2019

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[B]y its own terms, Rule 1.540 applies only to civil causes, not to collateral claims associated with a criminal conviction.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bryant v. State

Relies on Steinhorst v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-04-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Gary Lee Williams, in proper person.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before GREEN, RAMIREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

¶4 *428 PER CURIAM.

¶5The motion for rehearing is hereby denied. We withdraw our December 21, 2005 opinion and substitute the following in its place.

¶6Appellant Gary Lee Williams appeals the denial of his "Independent Action Under Extrinsic Fraud pursuant to RCP Rule 1.540(b)(3) and Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3)." As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Steinhorst v. State,636 So.2d 498, 500 (Fla.1994): "By its own terms, rule 1.540 applies only to civil causes, not to collateral claims associated with a criminal conviction." It appears that the circuit court therefore treated Williams' filing as a 3.850 motion and denied it as time-barred. We find no error.

¶7Affirmed.