Narrative Opinion Summary
Charles Johnson's direct appeal from a judgment and sentence following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine is affirmed regarding the adjudication of guilt and the sentence for that charge. However, the court reverses and remands the written judgment for a conviction of failing to appear for sentencing, as he was never charged with that crime. The court emphasizes that due process prohibits conviction for uncharged offenses, referencing Crain v. State. Consequently, the conviction and sentence for failing to appear are stricken from the record. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with concurrence from Chief Judge Northcutt and Judge Davis.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Guilty Plea and Sentencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence related to Charles Johnson's guilty plea for possession of cocaine.
Reasoning: Charles Johnson's direct appeal from a judgment and sentence following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine is affirmed regarding the adjudication of guilt and the sentence for that charge.
Due Process and Conviction for Uncharged Offensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied due process principles to reverse and remand a conviction for failing to appear because Charles Johnson was never charged with that crime.
Reasoning: The court emphasizes that due process prohibits conviction for uncharged offenses, referencing Crain v. State.
Reversal and Remand of Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed and remanded the written judgment for a conviction for failing to appear, as it was not supported by any charges.
Reasoning: However, the court reverses and remands the written judgment for a conviction of failing to appear for sentencing, as he was never charged with that crime.