ANTONIO MENENDEZ, 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.
Antonio Menendez appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court erroneously determined that Menendez was ineligible for parole; the appellate court reversed, finding him parole-eligible as mandated by prior Florida Supreme Court decisions, and remanded for correction of the sentencing order.
The trial court's denial of Menendez's motion to correct illegal sentence was reversed because the court incorrectly ruled the defendant ineligible for parole. The defendant is parole-eligible, and the sentencing order must be amended to reflect the twenty-five year mandatory minimum without eligibility for parole as mandated by the Florida Supreme Court.
[1] A trial court's order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be reversed when the court incorrectly rules that a defendant is ineligible for parole, and the…
[2] A sentence of natural life imprisonment may be illegal if it is imposed without the possibility of parole after a mandatory minimum term, contrary to a prior appellate ma…
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“We reverse the order because the trial court incorrectly ruled that the defendant is ineligible for parole, when in fact, he was eligible, as the State concedes.”
States the core holding that the trial court's determination of parole ineligibility was erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMenendez was convicted by jury of first-degree premeditated murder and robbery of a jewelry store owner. After two rounds of appellate proceedings and…
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 Life Imprisonment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Menendez appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We reverse the order because the trial court incorrectly ruled that the defendant is ineligible for parole, when in fact, he was eligible, as the State concedes.
By indictment, the defendant was charged in case no. 75-9339 with first-degree premeditated murder of a jewelry store owner and robbery of the store. Following the jury’s verdicts of guilty, the trial court adjudicated the defendant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the robbery and to death for the murder “as authorized by Section 775.082(1) of the Florida Statutes.” On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of first-degree murder and robbery but vacated the sentence of death and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Menendez v. State, 368 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1979). At resentencing, the trial court again imposed the death penalty. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court again vacated the death sentence and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without eligibility of parole for twenty-five years. Menendez v. State, 419 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1982). Subsequently, on December 28, 1982, the trial court sentenced the defendant to prison for a term of “natural life.”
The defendant then filed the instant motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. He claims that his 1982 sentence for a term of natural life is illegal because it amounted to his being sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after the completion of the twenty-five year minimum mandatory term. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion in a three-page written order entered on June 7, 2007, and this appeal followed.
We reverse the order on appeal because the trial court incorrectly ruled that the defendant is ineligible for parole. The State concedes that the defendant’s sentences are parole eligible. We thus reverse the order on appeal, remand the case to the trial court, and direct that the trial court amend count one to add the provision for the twenty-five year mandatory minimum without eligibility for parole, as mandated by the Florida Supreme Court in Menendez v. State, 419 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1982). The defendant need not be present for the correction of the sentencing order. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gomez v. State, 137 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…less than twenty-five years before becoming eligible for parole. This statute has been interpreted to necessarily confer parole eligibility after twenty-five years even without such pronouncement in the final sentencing order. See Menendez v. State, 976 So. 2d 81, 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Thus, whether or not the sentencing order contains language reflecting the eligibility for parole after serving twenty-five years is immaterial to the legality of the sentence, as the statute is self-executing. See Jenkins v.…
-
Honor v. State, 262 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Menendez v. State, 368 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1979)
- Menendez v. State, 419 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1982)