SANTOS RINCON, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief because the sentence was authorized for one of the convictions, despite the trial court's incorrect reasoning on the procedural challenge.
Santos Rincon sought postconviction relief, claiming his sentence included an illegal minimum mandatory term. The trial court denied his motion, incor…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying Santos Rincon’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We comment, however, on one issue.
The trial court denied Mr. Rin-con’s claim that his sentence was illegal. Mr. Rincon maintained that his three-year minimum mandatory term of imprisonment was not authorized by statute. The trial court ruled that an illegal sentence cannot be challenged by postconviction motion and that the issue must be preserved and raised on direct appeal. This is incorrect. See Súber v. State, 827 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Nevertheless, we affirm because Mr. Rincon disclosed that he was convicted of both manslaughter and aggravated battery. Although the minimum mandatory term would be illegal for the manslaughter conviction, see Strahom v. State, 436 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), it is authorized for an aggravated battery conviction. See § 775.087(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (1995).
In the event that Mr. Rincon still maintains that his sentences are illegal, this affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. Rincon might have to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) challenging the legality of the sentences.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strahorn v. State, 436 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Suber v. State, 827 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)