STEVEN JOHNSON JR., 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.
Johnson appealed an order granting his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, which resulted in reduction of his convictions for driving while license suspended to misdemeanor driving without a valid license. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to address Johnson's claim that he would not have entered his guilty plea had counsel properly advised him that he could not be convicted of the felony driving offenses.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to address Johnson's plea-related claim, and reversed and remanded for the trial court to rule on whether Johnson would not have entered his plea had he received proper advice regarding the unavailability of the felony driving convictions.
[1] A conviction for driving while license suspended or revoked requires the prior existence of a valid driver's license.
[2] A defendant may not be convicted of driving while license suspended or revoked if they never possessed a valid driver's license.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging that he could not have been convicted of the driving while license suspended or revoked charges because he never had a valid license. He alleged that he would not have entered his plea had counsel advised him that he could not be convicted of those charges.”
Establishes Johnson's core claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea-related prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson entered a negotiated guilty plea in three cases to two counts of possession of a controlled substance and two counts of driving while license …
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 Felony Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals an order granting a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in three cases to two charges of possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of driving while license suspended or revoked (habitual offender revocation), a violation of section 322.34(5), Florida Statutes (2013), in exchange for concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment for each count. The appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging that he could not have been convicted of the driving while license suspended or revoked charges because he never had a valid license. He alleged that he would not have entered his plea had counsel advised him that he could not be convicted of those charges. The State conceded that the appellant’s convictions for driving while license suspended or revoked were improper. The trial court then granted the motion and reduced the appellant’s convictions to those for driving without a valid driver’s license (a misdemeanor offense). However, the trial court failed to address the appellant’s claim that he would not have entered the plea had he been advised that he could not be convicted of two felony driving offenses. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address that allegation. Cf. Gonzalez v. State, 829 So.2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) *350(affirming denial of post-conviction in part, but reversing and remanding for trial court to rule on issue not addressed in order).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ROWE, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.