Johnson v. State, 77-340
| Decision Date | 07 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-340,77-340 |
| Citation | 355 So.2d 857 |
| Parties | Danny Demar JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Ronald A. Dion, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.
The single point to be determined on this appeal is whether a trial judge may refuse to consider a pre-sentence investigation report mandated by Section 921.231, Florida Statutes (1975), and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.710. We hold that a trial judge's announcement, prior to sentencing and submission of the presentence investigation report, that ". . . the Court is going to impose the same sentence regardless of the result of the presentence investigation" is a clear violation of the statute and rule, rendering the sentence illegal. We further hold that a defendant's waiver of presentence investigation after the announcement by the trial judge that he will disregard the report is not a waiver of the illegality of the sentence.
Johnson was charged by information with two counts of attempted first degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. He entered not guilty pleas and was tried before a jury.
At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned with a verdict of (1) guilty of the reckless display of a firearm as a lesser included offense under the charges of attempted first degree murder, (2) guilty of aggravated battery as a lesser included offense under one charge of attempted second degree murder and (3) not guilty of the other charge of attempted second degree murder.
Johnson, a first time offender, made a timely request for a presentence investigation. When the trial court announced that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the results of the presentence report, Johnson chose to be sentenced without the presentence investigation report.
The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment on the aggravated battery charge with a minimum three years to be served before becoming eligible for parole. Johnson was also sentenced to two consecutive one year terms on the charges of the reckless display of a firearm. He now takes this belated appeal.
A reading of the language of the statute and rule reveals a clear intention that first offenders should have the benefit of a presentence investigation and that trial judges should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tascano v. State, KK-22
...(Fla.1977); City of Orlando v. County of Orange, 276 So.2d 41 (Fla.1973); Neal v. Bryant, 149 So.2d 529 (Fla.1962); Johnson v. State, 355 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1978); In the Interest of J.W.H. v. State, 345 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977); White v. Means, 280 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. ......
-
Martell v. State, 96-1553
...Rule 3.850. See Young v. State, 616 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Pegues v. State, 361 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Johnson v. State, 355 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Finally, we recognize that a court has the authority to convert a 3.800(a) action into a 3.850 proceeding in the interes......
-
Comparato v. State, XX-306
...a presentence investigation report and consideration of same. Angel v. State, 305 So.2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Johnson v. State, 355 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). Section 775.083(1)(a-g), Florida Statutes, sets forth the maximum fine which may be imposed for designated crimes and non-cri......