JOHN BRUCE WILLIAMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John Bruce Williamson appealed his guilty plea sentence to life imprisonment with commitment as a mentally disordered sex offender, arguing it was illegal based on Gammill v. Wainwright. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding Williamson was not prejudiced because his negotiated plea resolved serious charges in his favor.
Williamson's sentence was legal and he was not prejudiced. Unlike in Gammill, where the defendant was examined and designated a mentally disordered sex offender without his request, Williamson's designation resulted from negotiated plea agreements that allowed him to avoid prosecution on two serious charges in exchange for the sentence imposed.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement, approved by the trial court, which results in the dismissal of more serious charges in exchange for a sentence and commitment for treatment a…
[2] A defendant who agrees to a sentence and commitment as a mentally disordered sex offender as part of a plea negotiation, and where such agreement is deemed to be in his b…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the trial judge's sentence reflected what Williamson apparently found to be in his best interests, it is too late for him to complain.”
The court's holding that Williamson was not prejudiced because his negotiated sentence was favorable to him and he cannot now challenge it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliamson was charged in 1975 with assault to murder, sexual battery, and kidnapping. He was examined by two psychiatrists for qualification as a men…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was informed against in 1975 for assault to murder in the first degree, sexual battery, and kidnapping. He filed a petition to have himself declared a mentally disordered sex offender and was examined by two psychiatrists. In August 1975, pursuant to plea negotiations, appellant entered a plea of guilty to sexual battery in return for which he would receive a life sentence and commitment for treatment as a mentally disordered sex offender. The trial court approved the negotiated plea and sentence.
Subsequent to those proceedings, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction in a case wherein the defendant was sentenced to 35 years in prison and institutionalized as a mentally disordered sex offender pursuant to Section 917.19, Florida Statutes (1975). Gammill v. Wainwright, 357 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978). Because of the holding in that case, Williamson filed a motion under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging that his sentence was illegal. The trial judge, after a hearing, denied Williamson’s motion. Williamson appealed.
We affirm. The circumstances in Gam-mill, supra, are distinguishable from those in this case. In Gammill the defendant had merely pled guilty and then requested to be examined to determine whether he would qualify for treatment as a mentally disordered sex offender. The trial judge determined that Gammill was a mentally disordered sex offender and then sentenced him to prison as well as institutionalizing him at a state hospital. The Supreme Court found, at 716, that Gammill’s rights were prejudiced by the trial judge’s actions.
In this case, however, it is difficult to see how appellant was prejudiced. He had been charged with three very serious crimes. He then, on advice of counsel, agreed to a sentence, which resulted from negotiations, that allowed two of the charges against him to be dropped in exchange for the sentence he received-and the declaration that he was a mentally disordered sex offender. Because the trial judge’s sentence reflected what Williamson apparently found to be in his best interests, it is too late for him to complain.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olden Richard Brown v. State, 400 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…of probation based on the ground that they were unlawfully entered. We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs in the light of appellant’s contentions and have concluded that reversible error has not been made to appear. Williamson v. State, 379 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1980); King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1977); Brown v…
Authorities Cited
- Gammill v. Louie L. Wainwright, 357 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1978)