JOSE ROSARIO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jose Rosario appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Upon the State's confession of error, the court reverses and remands, holding that the trial court was mistaken about its authority to impose concurrent sentences and should have done so based on the defendant's express request during the plea colloquy.
The trial court had clear authority to impose concurrent sentences as Rosario requested, and the court's mistaken belief about its lack of authority constitutes grounds for postconviction relief and resentencing.
[1] A trial court's mistaken belief about its authority to order concurrent sentencing, when that belief prevents the court from imposing a sentence as agreed upon in a plea…
[2] A confession of error by the State may lead to the reversal of an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is equally clear that the trial judge would have specifically ordered both of these sentences be served concurrently had the court not been mistaken about its authority to do so.”
Establishes the standard from Bruce v. State that a mistaken belief about sentencing authority warrants postconviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosario entered a guilty plea to burglary with assault and grand theft, agreeing to a twenty-eight month sentence. During the plea hearing, Rosario in…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Confession of Error
PER CURIAM.
Jose Rosario appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, which we treat as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Upon the State’s confession of error, we reverse the order now before us.
Defendant-appellant Rosario entered a guilty plea to burglary with an assault and grand theft, in exchange for a sentence of twenty-eight months incarceration. During the plea colloquy, the defendant informed the court that there was a pending control release violation. Defendant desired that the twenty-eight month sentence run concurrent with any sentence that would later be imposed for violation of control release. The trial court indicated that it had no objection to concurrent sentencing, but was under the impression that the court could only recommend, but could not require, that the Department of Corrections impose concurrent sentencing.
The trial court agreed to make such a recommendation, but never did. The defendant subsequently was found guilty of a violation of control release by the Department of Corrections, and the Department directed that the sentence on violation of control release be served consecutively. Defendant was denied postconviction relief in the trial court, and has appealed.
The State properly concedes that this case is indistinguishable from Bruce v. State, 679 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), where the court said, “It is equally clear that the trial judge would have specifically ordered both of these sentences be served concurrently had the court not been mistaken about its authority to do so.” Id. at 47. This court directed that postconviction relief be granted and remanded “with instructions to correct the judgment and sentence to reflect that the sentence imposed in this case run concurrently with the sentence imposed by the Department of Corrections for violation of control release.” Id.; see also Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We therefore reverse the order now before us and remand for resentencing in accordance with Bruce v. State,
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horton v. State, 976 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…herefore reversed the denial of Ebliris motion for postconviction relief and remanded to the postconviction court “for it to amend” Ebliris sentences accordingly. Id.; see also Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rosario v. State, 762 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Bruce v. State, 679 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In the instant case, the State has conceded that this court should rule in accordance with Eblin. Based on the authority of Eblin, we reverse the order denying Horton’s motion a…
Authorities Cited
- Bruce v. State, 679 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)