JUAN P. ARIAS, 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.
Juan Arias challenged his sentence by claiming the trial court orally pronounced only a ten-year minimum-mandatory sentence but entered a written judgment of twenty years with a ten-year minimum mandatory. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, finding the complete transcript showed the trial court had in fact orally pronounced the full twenty-year sentence with a ten-year minimum mandatory.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that the complete transcript clearly demonstrated the trial court had properly orally pronounced the full twenty-year sentence with a ten-year minimum mandatory, not merely the ten-year minimum mandatory as Arias claimed.
[1] A trial court may deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence when the complete transcript of the plea colloquy clearly shows that the oral pronouncement of the sentence…
[2] A party who selectively attaches portions of a transcript to support a claim, while omitting parts that contradict it, may be subject to sanctions.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes what the trial court actually said at sentencing, contradicting Arias's claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArias pleaded guilty to charges that carried a twenty-year sentence with a ten-year minimum mandatory as a habitual violent offender. Arias filed a mo…
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 Written Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Juan Arias seeks review of an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Arias contends that the trial court’s oral pronouncement conflicted with the written judgment and sentence. He asserted in his motion, and here on appeal, that the trial court orally pronounced only a ten-year minimum-mandatory sentence, and thereafter entered a written sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment with a ten-year minimum mandatory.
In support of his claim, Arias attached two pages from the transcript of the plea colloquy. It is true that, in these two pages, the trial court discusses with Arias only the ten-year minimum-mandatory sentence. However, the trial court, in denying the motion, attached the entire twelve-page transcript of the plea colloquy. The complete transcript reveals clearly that the trial court orally pronounced the full sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment with a ten-year minimum mandatory. At the beginning of the plea colloquy, the prosecutor announced the full sentence; later during the plea, Arias’ counsel acknowledged the full sentence; and finally, following a complete discussion with Arias as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c), the trial court accepted the plea and orally pronounced the full *41sentence of “twenty years in the state penitentiary as an habitual violent offender with a ten year minimum mandatory.”
The trial court properly denied Arias’ motion, and attached to its order a copy of the complete transcript. Given Arias’ actions in: (1) attaching to his motion only those portions of the transcript which purported to support his position, thereby creating a false impression of the record below; (2) failing to attach the complete transcript which revealed the meritless nature of his claim; and (3) prosecuting this appeal even in the face of a complete transcript, attached to the order, conclusively demonstrating his claim was without merit, Appellant Juan Arias is ordered to show good cause, within thirty days, why we should not impose sanctions, including:
1. Prohibiting Arias from filing further pro se pleadings in this Court;
2. Directing the Clerk of this Court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2012), for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See Isom v. State, 43 So.3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
Affirmed.