From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 19, 1996
676 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-2660.

June 21, 1996. Rehearing Denied July 19, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Lake County, Mark J. Hill, J.

Clyde Edward Johnson, Sneads, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Clyde Edward Johnson appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his double jeopardy rights. We affirm.

Johnson previously filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied this motion and was affirmed on appeal. Johnson v. State, 656 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Johnson's ineffective assistance claim is barred as successive. See Mills v. Dugger; 574 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1990) (holding habeas not to be used for additional appeal of post-conviction issues). As to the double jeopardy claim, the order denying relief is affirmed because Johnson entered a negotiated plea to the charges. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (holding that negotiated plea waives any double jeopardy claim).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Johnson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 19, 1996
676 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Johnson v. State

Case Details

Full title:CLYDE EDWARD JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 19, 1996

Citations

676 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Metellus v. State

The constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bar-gained-for plea…

Lewis v. State

The court in Taylor held Chapter 99-188 unconstitutional because it violated the single subject rule. It is…