EDWIN SANCHEZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Edwin Sanchez appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion alleging a violation of his plea agreement. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that while plea agreement violations are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a), the trial court should have treated the motion as a timely Rule 3.850 postconviction motion in the interest of justice.
The trial court erred in denying Sanchez's motion without treating it as a Rule 3.850 motion. Although the motion was filed under the wrong rule and is now untimely, it was timely at the time of filing, and the trial court should have either refuted the claim with record attachments or allowed Sanchez leave to amend under the proper postconviction rule.
“a motion filed under rule 3.800(a) should be treated as a motion filed under rule 3.850 where it is in the interest of justice to do so, and the motion would be timely under rule 3.850”
Establishes the standard for when a trial court must convert a Rule 3.800(a) motion to a Rule 3.850 motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion alleging a violation of a plea agreement. The trial court denied the motion. At the time of filing, the motion wo…
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 Violation Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Sanchez’s 3.800(a) motion alleged a violation of a plea agreement which even if true does not create an illegal sentence. McLendon v. State, 58 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Such a claim would have to be raised in a timely and legally sufficient rule 3.850 motion and is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a). However,
a motion filed under rule 3.800(a) should be treated as a motion filed under rule 3.850 where it is in the interest of justice to do so, and the motion would be timely under rule 3.850. Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 n.8 (Fla. 2007). While it is now too late for Sanchez to file such a motion as his sentence became final in February 2022, at the time the 3.800(a) motion was filed, it would have been timely, and the trial court should have treated the motion as a timely rule 3.850 motion and either refuted the claim with record attachments or allowed Sanchez leave to amend pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007).
Therefore, the trial court’s order denying Sanchez’s rule 3.800(a) motion is reversed and remanded.
The trial court shall provide Sanchez with an opportunity to raise his claim in a facially sufficient postconviction motion for relief pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. REVERSED and REMANDED. EDWARDS, C.J., and MAKAR and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
- Dewayne R. McLENDON v. State, 58 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)