From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 3, 1999
745 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 99-2335.

Opinion filed December 3, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Frank N. Kaney, Judge.

Ervin Johnson, South Bay, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


This is an appeal of the denial of Ervin Tyron Johnson's motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant challenges the legality of his sentence because the trial court refused to accept his negotiated plea with the state. We affirm.

Mr. Johnson was charged with burglary of a dwelling with an assault and attempted sexual battery. Mr. Johnson claims that prior to trial on these charges he entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the state. According to Mr. Johnson the terms of this agreement were that he would enter a plea of no contest in exchange for a sentence of 4+ to 5+ years.

§§ 794.011(2); 777.04, Fla. Stat. (1985).

After considering Mr. Johnson's presentence investigation report, Mr. Johnson's prior criminal history and the sentencing guidelines range, the original trial court rejected the negotiated plea which called for a downward departure in the sentencing guidelines. However, the trial court did indicate that it would entertain a negotiated plea providing for a guideline sentence or, in the alternative, allow Mr. Johnson to withdraw his tendered plea. No such negotiated agreement was forthcoming; Mr. Johnson withdrew his guilty plea and proceeded to trial where he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years on each charge.

Another trial court later considered the defendant's postconviction motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a), challenging the legality of the sentence. The trial court denied relief, finding that the claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800 because the sentences did not exceed the statutory maximum and there were no errors apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Johnson did not allege that his sentence was illegal because it patently failed to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla. 1998); Goins v. State, 672 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1996). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Johnson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 3, 1999
745 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

Johnson v. State

Case Details

Full title:ERVIN TYRONE JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 3, 1999

Citations

745 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)