JOHNNY WILLIAMS, 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.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentencing, holding that prior robbery convictions were improperly scored as first-degree felonies.
Appellant was convicted of cocaine trafficking. The trial court denied his motion to suppress and admitted certain evidence. The scoring of prior conv…
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.'
Williams has appealed from judgment and sentence following his conviction of trafficking in more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Williams’ motion to suppress, and further hold that there was no error in the trial court’s admission of the so-called Williams rule evidence cited by appellant.
We are, however, constrained by this court’s opinion in Johnson v. State, 525 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) to reverse the scoring of Williams’ 1971 robbery convictions as first-degree felonies punishable by life, and on remand to require that those convictions be scored as third-degree felonies. However, based upon doubt concerning the holding in Johnson that the degree of the felony described in the pertinent statute, Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1969), is “impossible to determine” within Rule 3.701(d)(5)(a)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
Is the degree of the felony described in Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1969) “impossible to determine” within the meaning of Rule 3.701(d)(5)(a)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, so as to justify scoring a prior conviction under that statute as a third-degree felony without consideration of the particular circumstances of the conviction?
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
BOOTH, JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcoxson v. State, 577 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…of robbery was not separated into degrees. Appellant has properly argued that, under Johnson v. State, 525 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), an undifferentiated robbery conviction is to be scored as a third degree felony. See also, Williams v. State, 562 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dism., 570 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1990). Review of the appellant’s scoresheet indicates that the 1969 robbery conviction which was included also appears to have [*1392] been improperly scored as a first degree felony punishable by li…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 525 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)