MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Manuel Rodriguez appeals his sentencing after remand, challenging the trial court's failure to comply with the appellate court's prior mandate regarding which convictions should result in sentencing. The court reverses and remands because the trial court deviated from the explicit directions in the appellate mandate by resentencing on vehicular homicide instead of striking it as ordered.
The trial court erred by deviating from the appellate mandate. The trial court was required to strike the sentence for vehicular homicide (count 1) as originally directed, not resentence on it. The trial court's role in carrying out an appellate mandate is purely ministerial and it cannot deviate from the terms of the mandate.
[1] A trial court's role in carrying out an appellate mandate is ministerial and it cannot deviate from the terms of the mandate.
[2] Sentencing a defendant for multiple homicide offenses arising from a single death violates double jeopardy protections.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In carrying out an appellate mandate, the trial court's role is purely ministerial.”
Establishes the standard that trial courts must strictly follow appellate directives without exercising discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was convicted by jury on nine counts including vehicular homicide, third-degree murder, DUI manslaughter, and related offenses arising from …
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 Dui With Serious Bodily Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Manuel Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s sentence, after remand, for multiple criminal counts arising from a vehicular accident. We are compelled to reverse because the trial court did not follow our mandate.
The jury convicted Mr. Rodriguez on nine counts: vehicular homicide (count 1); third-degree murder (count 2); DUI manslaughter (count 3); leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (count 4); leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury (count 5); DUI with serious bodily injury (count 6); driving while license suspended with death resulting (count 7); driving while license suspended with serious bodily injury (count 8); and grand theft auto (count 9).
At the original sentencing hearing, the State voluntarily deleted counts 1 and 8 from the scoresheet, ostensibly to avoid double jeopardy issues. Rodriguez v. State, 875 So. 2d 642, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, the State computed Mr. Rodriguez’s sentencing scoresheet using the convictions for only counts 2 through 7 and count 9. The trial court, however, sentenced Mr. Rodriguez on all nine counts.
On appeal, we held that the trial court erred in sentencing Mr. Rodriguez for nine counts after the State conceded that only seven required imposition of punishment. Id. We reversed the sentences on counts 1 and 8 and directed the trial court to strike them on remand. Id. at 646. We also held that the adjudication for both third-degree murder (count 2) and DUI manslaughter (count 3) violated double jeopardy protections because the trial court imposed “more than one homicide punishment ... for a single death.” Id. at 645 (citing Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193, 1197 (Fla.1985)). Therefore, we reversed the adjudication and sentence for count 2. Id. at 646.
Although our opinion was unambiguous, the State entreated the trial court to allow the State to decide which homicide sentence to strike. On remand, the trial court struck the adjudication and sentence for count 2 and the sentence for count 8 as directed. But, instead of striking the sentence for vehicular homicide (count 1), the trial court resentenced Mr. Rodriguez on that count and struck the sentence for DUI manslaughter (count 3).
The trial court erred in failing to comply with our mandate. In carrying out an appellate mandate, the trial court’s role is purely ministerial. Straley v. Frank, 650 So. 2d 628, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing O.P. Corp. v. Village of N. Palm Beach, 302 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla.1974)). It cannot “deviate from the terms of an appellate mandate.” Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811, 813-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing conforming to our prior mandate.
Reversed and remanded.
CANADY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Insko v. State, 933 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…The circuit court was correct to deny Insko’s motion because to grant the motion would have required it to deviate from our mandate. The trial court’s role in carrying out an appellate court’s mandate is purely ministerial. See Rodriguez v. State, 924 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Straley v. Frank, 650 So. 2d 628, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). Absent permission to do otherwise, “a trial court utterly lacks the power to deviate from the terms of an appellate mandate.” Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.…
-
State v. Gomez, 247 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Elder v. State, 268 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…. State, 988 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quoting McGlade v. State, 941 So. 2d 1185, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ). That is because the trial court's role in carrying out an appellate court's mandate is purely ministerial. See Rodriguez v. State, 924 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Straley v. Frank, 650 So. 2d 628, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ). This court reversed the judgment and sentence because in the absence of an adjudication of competency at the time of Elder's plea and given the trial court'…
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
- Ramsey v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)
- Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)
- O. P. Corp. & Wiggs & Maale Constr. Co., Inc. v. The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach, 302 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1974)
- Straley v. Frank, 650 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- City OF Miami v. Juarez, 875 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Zoto's Int'l, Inc. v. Pinkus, 341 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Rodriguez v. State, 875 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Mendelson v. Lavine Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)