Isiah Johnson v. State of Florida ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    STATE OF FLORIDA
    _____________________________
    No. 1D18-4640
    _____________________________
    ISIAH JOHNSON,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________
    On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
    John L. Miller, Judge.
    September 21, 2020
    SALVADOR, TATIANA R., ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
    Isiah Johnson appeals from a trial court order on his amended
    motion to withdraw plea, or in the alternative amended motion to
    correct sentencing error. The trial court concluded that it lacked
    jurisdiction over the motion to withdraw plea and denied the
    sentencing claims on the merits, after treating them as being filed
    pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We
    affirm this resolution of Mr. Johnson’s motion. 1
    1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R.
    App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(D).
    I.
    On July 16, 2009, Mr. Johnson entered a no-contest plea to
    armed burglary of a dwelling, aggravated battery on a person 65
    or older with great bodily harm, grand theft of an automobile,
    grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm. On September 18, 2009,
    the trial court sentenced him to 35 years’ incarceration followed by
    2 years of community control for the most serious count. Mr.
    Johnson was a minor at the time he committed the offenses.
    On October 16, 2009, Mr. Johnson filed a motion to withdraw
    plea, asserting that the plea was involuntary. Subsequently, on
    March 9, 2010, the court held a hearing where newly appointed
    counsel advised the court that Mr. Johnson wished to withdraw his
    motion.
    The court then engaged in a colloquy with Mr. Johnson and
    advised that the motion to withdraw was “well taken” and the
    court was likely to grant it. Mr. Johnson told the court that he
    understood this but nonetheless wished to withdraw his motion to
    withdraw plea. Mr. Johnson told the court that he did not want to
    go to trial “[b]ecause I feel like I will get myself deeper in trouble
    by going to trial.” After engaging in additional discussion with Mr.
    Johnson, the trial court allowed him to withdraw his motion to
    withdraw plea, finding that Mr. Johnson wanted to “maintain his
    plea” and that he “ha[d] a logical basis for his position.” The trial
    court entered no written order allowing Mr. Johnson to withdraw
    his motion to withdraw plea, but the court docket does contain a
    notation: “Defendant wishes to withdraw his motion to withdraw
    plea and maintain his plea and wishes to go back to state prison –
    Granted.”
    Over the next few years, Mr. Johnson filed a rule 3.850 motion
    and a rule 3.800(a) motion. Both were denied by the trial court and
    affirmed on appeal by this Court.
    In 2017, Mr. Johnson filed an amended motion to withdraw
    plea or in the alternative amended motion to correct sentencing
    error under rule 3.800(b)(1) in the trial court. In it he asserted that
    his plea was involuntary and that his sentence was illegal under
    Graham v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 48
     (2010), and its progeny. He
    maintained that the court could hear the amended motion because
    2
    the judgment and sentence never became final, as no written order
    was entered regarding his motion to withdraw plea from 2009.
    The trial court rejected Mr. Johnson’s jurisdictional
    argument, concluding that the judgment and sentence had long
    been final and that he could not withdraw his plea at this late date.
    The court also denied the claim that his sentence was illegal,
    treating the motion as being properly brought under Florida Rule
    of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
    II.
    Mr. Johnson asserts that the court incorrectly concluded that
    it lacked jurisdiction over his amended motion to withdraw plea.
    He asserts that because no written order was entered addressing
    the 2009 motion to withdraw plea, the final judgment was never
    rendered, leaving jurisdiction in the trial court. We disagree and
    affirm. 2
    A rule 3.170(l) motion must be filed “within thirty days after
    rendition of the sentence.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l). The judgment
    and sentence is rendered “when a signed, written order is filed
    with the clerk of the lower tribunal.” Fla. R. App. 9.020(h) (2009). 3
    However, the filing of a timely motion to withdraw plea tolls
    rendition of the final judgment and sentence. Fla. R. App. P.
    9.020(h) (2009). When the motion has “been filed, the final order
    shall not be deemed rendered . . . until the filing of a signed,
    written order disposing of all such motions between such parties.”
    Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(1) (2009); see also Smallwood v. State, 
    911 So. 2d 849
    , 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
    It is clear that the failure to dispose of a pending motion to
    withdraw plea with a written order will delay rendition of the final
    order, even for years. This Court has previously found a final
    2As to his other arguments, we affirm without further
    comment.
    3 We use the 2009 version of this rule that was in effect when
    Appellant filed his motion to withdraw plea. Rule 9.020 has since
    been reorganized, but in ways that are immaterial to our decision.
    3
    judgment’s rendition was delayed from 2002 until 2009 based on a
    pending motion to withdraw plea. See Douglas v. State, 
    41 So. 3d 428
     (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
    However, here, there was no such pending motion to withdraw
    plea. The trial court clearly ruled on the record that Mr. Johnson
    was permitted to withdraw his motion to withdraw plea. The court
    docket likewise contains a notation to that effect. There was no
    requirement that the court enter a written order on the motion to
    withdraw the motion to withdraw plea. And because the motion
    was withdrawn, and there was no pending motion for the court to
    address, rule 9.020(h)(1) did not further toll rendition of the final
    judgment.
    We have not failed to consider Mr. Johnson’s reliance on
    Iriarte v. State, 
    119 So. 3d 528
     (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). But we find this
    case readily distinguishable. In Iriarte, the court reversed a
    summary denial of a postconviction motion, where the trial court
    had ruled that the motion was untimely. 
    Id. at 528
    . The Second
    District noted that the appellant’s filing of a motion to withdraw
    plea tolled rendition of the final judgment. 
    Id.
     The court then held
    that, notwithstanding the appellant’s admission to voluntarily
    dismissing his motion to withdraw plea, it was unclear when the
    motion was dismissed and accordingly, “the date his judgment and
    sentence became final cannot be determined from the record, and
    the timeliness of his current rule 3.850 motion remains unclear.”
    
    Id.
     Thus, contrary to Mr. Johnson’s argument, the Second District
    did not hold that a written order is required even when a motion
    to withdraw plea is voluntarily withdrawn. Rather, the court ruled
    that it could not tell when the judgment and sentence became final,
    based on the record and the trial court’s attachments to the order
    denying rule 3.850 relief. Thus, a summary denial in that instance
    was reversed.
    As such, Iriarte is inapplicable on the facts of this case. The
    record before us is clear that that the motion to withdraw plea was
    withdrawn on March 9, 2010. The final judgment became final 30
    days later. And the trial court correctly concluded that it lacked
    jurisdiction over the amended motion to withdraw plea, filed in
    2017. See Gafford v. State, 
    783 So. 2d 1191
    , 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA
    2001) (“[T]he 30-day limit under 3.170(l) is also jurisdictional;
    4
    therefore, the trial court did not have the authority to consider
    Gafford’s motion . . . .”).
    III.
    Mr. Johnson received a 35-year incarcerative sentence for
    felonies he committed when he was 13. He contends that he is
    entitled to resentencing and retroactive application of the sentence
    review procedures under section 921.1402, Florida Statutes. Based
    on our precedent, the trial court correctly denied Mr. Johnson
    relief.
    The Florida Supreme Court has “narrowly defined the class of
    offenders entitled to resentencing under the new juvenile
    resentencing laws; specifically, those defendants who originally
    received life sentences and who were resentenced after their
    sentences were vacated pursuant to Graham but before the July 1,
    2014 effective date of the new juvenile sentencing laws.” Hart v.
    State, 
    255 So. 3d 921
    , 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Because Mr.
    Johnson never received a life sentence and never had his sentence
    vacated under Graham, he is not entitled to sentencing review
    after 25 years. See id. at 927. Nor is he entitled to resentencing
    under Graham. His 35-year incarcerative sentence is not a de facto
    life sentence. See id. (“Consistent with the requirements of
    Graham, Hart’s fifty-year sentence affords him a meaningful
    opportunity for release during his natural life.”). Thus, the trial
    court did not err in denying Mr. Johnson relief under rule 3.800(a).
    IV.
    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the trial court.
    KELSEY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
    _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
    _____________________________
    5
    Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.,
    Tallahassee; Shalini Goel Agarwal of Southern Poverty Law
    Center, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    6