RICARDO L. 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.
Ricardo Johnson appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentence as vindictive. The trial court erroneously barred the motion as raising an issue identical to one raised on direct appeal, but the appellate court reversed, finding the issues were legally distinct because the new motion involved a judge who participated in failed plea negotiations before imposing a harsher sentence.
The court held that the issue in the Rule 3.800(a) motion was cognizably distinct from the issue on direct appeal and therefore not barred by the law of the case. The direct appeal involved sentencing by a different judge without the complicating factor of that judge's participation in plea negotiations, while the Rule 3.800(a) motion involved sentencing by a judge who had negotiated the original plea offer.
[1] A claim that a sentence is vindictive due to a judge's involvement in prior plea negotiations is distinct from a claim that a sentence is retaliatory or vindictive based…
[2] A motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not barred by the law of the case if the precise issue argued has not been previously raised.
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“The issue asserted in the 3.800(a) motion is cognizably distinct from the issue raised on direct appeal.”
Establishes that the two proceedings involve legally distinct issues because of the sentencing judge's participation in plea negotiations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson initially entered an open no contest plea and received a 10-year sentence. After successfully moving to withdraw his plea, he was tried before…
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 Vindictive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Ricardo Lopez Johnson, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) mo tion. Because the trial court erroneously found that Defendant’s motion was based on an identical issue previously raised on direct appeal and thus barred by the law of the case, we reverse.
Defendant initially entered an open no contest plea. Although the State argued that Defendant should be sentenced as a habitual felony offender, the trial judge imposed a straight ten-year sentence. Defendant later successfully moved to withdraw his plea and was tried and convicted before a different judge. This judge sentenced Defendant to thirty years as a habitual violent felony offender, with a ten-year minimum mandatory term. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence imposed was retaliatory and vindictive in light of his earlier ten-year sentence. His argument was rejected, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court. See Johnson v. State, '703 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Defendant then launched the instant collateral attack. He alleged in his rule 3.800(a) motion that after he was allowed to withdraw his plea, the new judge, who had participated in plea negotiations resulting in the rejected ten-year plea offer, then sentenced him to the much harsher habitual violent felony offender sentence.
Accordingly, Defendant claimed that his new sentence was vindictive.
The issue asserted in the 3.800(a) motion is cognizably distinct from the issue raised on direct appeal. The direct appeal involved an open plea before one judge and a harsher sentence imposed by a different judge after the plea was withdrawn and Defendant was tried. The instant 3.800(a) motion, on the other hand, challenged a sentence imposed by a judge who participated in failed plea negotiations.
Therefore, the issue raised in the rule 3.800(a) motion is not barred by the law of the case. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 289-90 (Fla.2003) (observing that questions of - law actually decided on appeal constitute the law of the case through all subsequent proceedings); see also Ferro v. State, 782 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that rule 3.800(a) motion should not have been denied as successive where precise issue argued had not been previously raised). “ ‘[Wjhen the judge has been involved in the plea negotiation and then later imposes a harsher sentence [than the one contemplated in the failed negotiations], the sentence is presumed to be vindictive’ ” and the “ ‘presumption may be overcome only if the record affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant’s insistence on a trial was given no consideration at sentencing.’ ” Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting McDonald v. State, 751 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).
A review of the totality of the circumstances-is required to determine whether the harsher sentence is vindictive. See Wilson v. State, 845 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2003).
As the trial court in this case incorrectly denied the'motion as barred by the law of the case, the order denying Defendant’s rule 3.800(a) motion is reversed and the case is remanded for consideration of Defendant’s motion in light of the totality of the circumstances.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J., PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Lacce Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) finding that his claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We certify direct conflict with Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Affirmed; direct conflict certified. LEVY, C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.…
-
Jackson v. State, 921 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2006)…lly accepted jurisdiction to review Jackson v. State, 895 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), a decision which the Second District Court of Appeal certified to be in direct conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Subsequently, the Fifth District decided Bouno v. State, 900 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), in which the Fifth District distinguished its prior opinion in Johnson and agreed with the Second Di…
-
Satahoo v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…his claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence. Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We also certify direct conflict with Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Affirmed; direct conflict certified.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Wilson v. State, 845 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2003)
- Cordell T. Allen v. State, 751 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- McDONALD v. State, 751 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Dusty Dale Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ferro v. State, 782 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)