JONATHAN POWELL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A challenge to the procedure employed to impose a mandatory minimum sentence based on alleged technical defects in the charging document does not constitute an illegal sentence subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[1] A procedural defect in a charging document does not constitute an illegal sentence subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), even when the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJonathan Powell appealed from a circuit court order denying his motion challenging the procedure that led to the imposition of his mandatory minimum s…
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 Enhanced Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 28, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-2367 Lower Tribunal No. F08-20997 ________________ Jonathan Powell, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Hersch, Judge. Jonathan Powell, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989, 990-92 (Fla. 2017) (defendant challenged the procedure that led to the imposition of his mandatory minimum sentence, arguing he was deprived of due process by an alleged technical defect in the charging document; the Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying relief, holding that such a challenge to the procedure employed to impose the punishment does not constitute an “illegal sentence” subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)); Louis v. State, 394 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); Cabrera v. State, 352 So. 3d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“[A] claim that the charging document did not allege the facts necessary to support [the] enhanced sentence is precisely the type of technical deficiency in the sentencing procedure that the supreme court held is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”); Robinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1262 (1st DCA 2017).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2017)
- Ivory Lee Robinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)