CARLOS MACIAS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 held that a rule 3.800(a) motion can challenge a sexual predator designation if the record shows the defendant did not meet the criteria.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal cited Saintelien in Macias while Saintelien was pending review. The Supreme Court stayed the case pending its disp…
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 Sexual Predator Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Macias v. State, 956 So.2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Saintelien v. State, 937 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), approved in result, 990 So.2d 494 (Fla.2008). At the time the Fourth District Court issued its decision in Macias, its Saintelien decision was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V; § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed the present case pending our disposition of Saintelien, in which we ultimately held that “a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence may be used to challenge a sexual predator designation, but limit our holding to cases where it is apparent from the face of the record that the defendant did not meet the criteria for designation as a sexual predator.” Saintelien v. State, 990 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla.2008). In so holding, we approved the result the Fourth District Court’s underlying Saintelien decision. See id. at 497.
We have determined to accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District Court for reconsideration upon review of the record and application of this Court’s decision in Saintelien.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 35 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ROTHENBERG, J. We reconsider on remand our opinion in Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“Brown I”), which was quashed by the Supreme Court of Florida following its decision in State v. Brown, 3 So. 3d 1190 (Fla.2009) (“Brown II”). As ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida, we have reconsidered our earlier decision in light of Garzon v. State, 980 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.2008) (“Garzon II”), and conclude that based on an examination of the “totality of the r…
-
MacIas v. State, 10 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…On Remand from the Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. This case is returned to us on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida, Macias v. State, 3 So. 3d 1190 (2009). The Supreme Court quashed our decision and remanded the case for “reconsideration upon review of the record and application of [the] Court’s decision in Saintelien.” Id. We have reviewed Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla.2008). There…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)
- Pernell v. State, 937 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- MacIas v. State, 956 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Renoit Saintelien v. State, 937 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)