FIDEL A. PRIETO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Fidel Prieto appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. The appellate court affirmed the denial because the motion was unclear and failed to identify any specific, cognizable error appropriate for postconviction review.
The court affirmed the summary denial of the motion because Prieto failed to clearly identify any specific error appropriate for postconviction relief, and the court was unable to discern any such error from the motion itself.
[1] A motion to correct sentence must clearly articulate the grounds for relief to allow for a complete understanding of the sentencing proceedings.
[2] A claim that a trial court failed to provide written reasons for a departure sentence must be raised on direct appeal, not in a motion for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“one seeking to 'correct' a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why that sentence requires such correction”
Establishes the burden on the moving party in postconviction sentence correction proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrieto filed a motion to correct his sentence, but the motion was poorly worded and raised multiple grievances without clarity. The motion variously s…
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 Prior Criminal Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fidel Prieto appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We affirm.
The motion raises numerous grievances. Regrettably, it is not worded clearly enough to give this court a complete understanding of what took place at the time of sentencing.1 For example, at one point Prieto describes his sentence as a guideline departure, albeit one entered without written reasons justifying the departure. A reference to Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986), suggests the sentence may have been the result of a plea agreement. Other portions of the motion, however, indicate Prieto was to have received a guideline sentence, but that the scoresheet was hopelessly miscalculated.
The state concedes that the exhibits attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively demonstrate the legality of Prie-to’s sentence. Notwithstanding this concession, we are unable to discern any specific error appropriate for postconvietion review. Accordingly, the presence or absence of corroborating exhibits is immaterial.
First, if this was a deliberate departure sentence, the motion was properly denied. “[A] contemporaneous objection is not essential to an appeal from a trial court’s failure to embody the reasons for departure in writing, but that issue ... must be raised on [plenary] appeal and not through a [motion for postconvietion relief].” Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Second, if Prieto agreed to the length of the sentence, it would not require correction notwithstanding the fact it was outside guidelines. Williams, cited in Prieto’s mo- tion, does not require a contrary result. In Williams (a direct appeal, not a postconviction action) the defendant had been improperly required to submit to “conditions imposed by the trial court as a prerequisite to the court’s compliance with the sentencing guidelines law.” 500 So. 2d at 502. There was no quid pro quo as occurs in the standard plea bargain. See, e.g., Orsi v. State, 515 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Finally, if the sentence was meant to be consistent with guidelines, the complaints now urged by Prieto involve factual disputes such as the extent of his prior criminal history. “Such issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal and are not appropriate for consideration under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).” Huffman v. State, 611 So. 2d 2, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), rev. denied, 620 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1993). We are unable to conclude, as Prieto appears to argue, that the sentencing court improperly relied upon Slappy v. State, 516 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) when scoring as “prior record” what should have been “additional offenses at conviction.” In short, the score-sheet is not, on its face, readily discernible as incorrect. See generally Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur. . We take this opportunity, once again, “to emphasize that one seeking to 'correct' a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why that sentence requires such correction.” Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). While we do not subject prisoners’ pleadings to the same standards that apply to those filed by trained attorneys, we cannot grant relief when we must guess about the reasons such relief is demanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 783 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…o so. In fact, it has been the sound practice of Florida's courts to not accept improper concessions by the state. See, e.g., Gomez v. State, 684 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Fichara v. State, 688 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Prieto v. State, 627 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993). As Judge Cowart said in his dissent in Matson v. State, 445 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), “a conclusory concession as to judicial error below, made by a party on appeal, is a most unsatisfactory and dangerous basis for…
-
Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…not to accept erroneous concessions by the state. See Reed v. State, 783 So. 2d 1192, 1196 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Henry v. State, 564 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Santiago v. State, 669 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Prieto v. State, 627 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634. So. 2d 626 (Fla.1994). We cannot agree that a reversal for resentenc-ing is required under the circumstances here. Appellant was convicted of selling or delivering cocaine. Even though one of the predicate…
-
Solomon Braggs v. State, 679 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Qumterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988); Prieto v. State, 627 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So. 2d 626 (Fla.1994); Kelly v. State, 599 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)
- Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Slappy v. State, 516 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Roberts, 515 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Orsi v. State, 515 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Huffman v. State, 611 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)