Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D05-4195.,5D05-4195. |
| Citation | 947 So.2d 1208 |
| Parties | Anthony JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Anthony Johnson ["Johnson"] appeals the order denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea and the judgment and sentence that the trial court entered based on that plea. Because Johnson established good cause to withdraw the plea, we reverse.
On about April 19, 2003, Johnson allegedly entered the home of another, without the owner's permission. While inside, Johnson took a purse containing personal items and cash. As Johnson was leaving the home, he was confronted by an off-duty police officer. When this happened, Johnson dropped the purse and ran. Johnson was captured two days later. He subsequently confessed to the burglary and theft.
The State charged Johnson with burglary of a dwelling, a second-degree felony, and petit theft, a second-degree misdemeanor. He was initially represented by Attorney Michael Chauvin. A motion to suppress his confession in the burglary case was filed and was scheduled to be heard, but Johnson entered into a plea agreement with the State. At the time of the plea agreement, Johnson was also facing charges of capital murder and attempted robbery with a firearm in a separate case. Pursuant to the plea agreement, in exchange for Johnson's plea of no contest to the burglary charge, the State agreed to a sixteen-month prison sentence that would run concurrently with any active sentence. Further, the State agreed not to use this conviction as an aggravating factor in the capital murder case. The trial court accepted Johnson's plea of no contest and sentencing was scheduled for September 16, 2005.
Johnson subsequently retained private attorney, A. Michael Bross, to represent him in the capital murder case. That lawyer also filed a notice of appearance in this case.
At the commencement of the September 16, 2005 hearing, before the trial court pronounced sentence, Johnson notified the trial court that he wanted to withdraw his no contest plea. On November 22, 2005, the trial court heard arguments and testimony on Johnson's plea withdrawal motion. Johnson asserted that the plea was not entered voluntarily because Johnson was not advised by defense counsel of the direct consequences of this plea. Johnson further argued that Mr. Chauvin had not explained to him that a conviction in this case could be used to impeach him if he took the stand in the murder case. In response, the State argued that it would be speculation whether Johnson might wish to testify at some trial in the future.
The trial court heard testimony from both Johnson and Mr. Chauvin at the November 22, 2005, hearing. Johnson testified that his counsel had never explained to him that a conviction in this case could be used to impeach him if he were to testify in the pending murder case. Johnson also testified that he intended to take the stand in the murder case.1
The State presented testimony from Mr. Chauvin that he discussed "all aspects" of this plea with Johnson, including potential penalties, but he never said he explained to Johnson that the State could use the felony conviction from the burglary plea to impeach him at his murder trial.
When a defendant files a motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f)2, he is entitled to withdraw his plea as a matter of right when good cause is shown. Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla.2005); Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269, 274 (Fla.1999). Further, under this rule, the trial court may, at its discretion, permit the defendant to withdraw a plea in the interest of justice upon a showing that falls below good cause. Id. The burden to establish good cause under the rule is on the defendant. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...or that it was otherwise involuntary, or that the ends of justice would be served by withdrawal of such plea.'" Johnson v. State, 947 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Onnestad v. State, 404 So.2d 403, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA This rule should be liberally construed in favor of the def......
-
Stewart v. State
...collateral consequence, it still constituted good cause to withdraw the plea. Id. at 213. In so holding, we relied on Johnson v. State , 947 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), in which the court held that "[f]ailure to inform [the defendant] of th[e] collateral consequence[s] may not have ren......
-
Luedtke v. State
... ... to withdraw a plea has been found to exist "when the plea is 'infected by misapprehension, undue persuasion, ignorance, or was entered by one not competent to know its consequence or that it was otherwise involuntary, or that the ends of justice would be served by withdrawal of such plea.'" Johnson v ... 6 So.3d 656 ... State, 947 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Onnestad v. State, 404 So.2d 403, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)). Civil commitment of persons found to be sexual predators under the Jimmy Ryce Act is considered a collateral consequence of a plea to a qualifying offense ... ...
-
Garren v. State
...under this rule, a defendant "is entitled to withdraw his plea as a matter of right when good cause is shown." Johnson v. State, 947 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citations omitted). Although "[t]he burden to establish good cause under the rule is on the defendant . . . the rule sho......