MORRIS JOHNSON, 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.
Morris Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Johnson argues that his consecutive sentences for two burglaries and grand theft are illegal because the charges arose from the same criminal episode. The court reverses and remands, finding the trial court's factual finding that offenses occurred on different dates was incorrect.
The court held that Johnson's claim is facially sufficient under rule 3.800(a) because he alleges facts showing the sentences are illegal. The trial court erred in finding the offenses occurred on different dates when the information clearly shows they occurred on the same date.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is facially sufficient if the alleged illegality can be determined from the face…
[2] Consecutive sentences for offenses arising out of the same incident may be illegal.
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“Johnson's claim is facially sufficient and can be brought pursuant to rule 3.800(a) because he alleges that it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentences are illegal.”
Establishes the legal standard for facial sufficiency of claims under rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary and one count of grand theft. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive sentences of…
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 Single Criminal Episode Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Morris Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Johnson pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary and to one count of grand theft in case number 89-0909. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive sentences of ten years’ incarceration for each of the burglary convictions and to a consecutive five years’ probation for the grand theft conviction. Johnson claims that his consecutive sentences for the two burglaries and the grand theft are illegal because the charges arose out of the same incident. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524-25 (Fla.1993). Johnson’s claim is facially sufficient and can be brought pursuant to rule 3.800(a) because he alleges that it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentences are illegal. See Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
The trial court denied Johnson’s claim, stating that the information showed that the offenses occurred on different dates and thus were separate criminal episodes. The trial court’s order is factually incorrect. The information filed in case number 89-0909 indicates that the two burglaries and the one grand theft occurred on the same date. Because Johnson has made a facially sufficient claim which is not refuted by the record, we reverse and remand. On remand, if it can be determined from the record that these crimes arose from a single criminal episode, then Johnson is entitled to be resentenced to concurrent terms on his burglary and grand theft convictions. If the crimes did not, in fact, arise from a single criminal episode or if a determination cannot be made from the record, then the trial court may summarily deny the motion with appropriate attachments.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and KELLY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canavan v. State, 842 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…bitual offender and sentenced to 10 years incarceration followed by probation received an illegal sentence because the offenses arose from a single criminal episode. See also Whitfield v. State, 804 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 809 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Benjamin v. State, 667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Taylor v. State, 658 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But see Davis v. State, 710 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (where defendant was found to be a habitual offender only as to…
-
Williams v. State, 124 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…gravated assaults (count four) because both offenses arose out of a single episode. Additionally, attaching relevant pages from the trial transcript, he argued that this circumstance is demonstrable from the face of the record. See Johnson v. State, 809 So. 2d 892, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Johnson’s claim is facially sufficient and can be brought pursuant to rule 3.800(a) because he alleges that it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentences are illegal.”). Acknowledging Hale v. State, 63…
-
Watson v. State, 828 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…n failed to allege that it can be determined from the face of the record that the sentences are illegal, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to any right that Watson may have to file a facially sufficient claim. See Johnson v. State, 809 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)