JOSE D. RAMIREZ,
v.
THE 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 motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not cognizable when the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction rather than the legality of the sentence itself.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is limited to challenges of the sentence itself and is not cognizable for attack…
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 intelligence“a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”
Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
Jose D. Ramirez filed a motion captioned as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, but the motion actually challenged the legality of his arrest 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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 31, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1014 Lower Tribunal No. F17-23037B ________________
Jose D. Ramirez, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.
Jose D. Ramirez, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Jose D. Ramirez appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion purporting to challenge the legality of his sentence. Although captioned as a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), Ramirez’s motion is in reality a challenge to the validity of the underlying conviction, rather than a challenge to the legality of the sentence. Ramirez contends that his arrest and prosecution was the result of an unlawful reverse-sting operation conducted by law enforcement, and that his conviction (and the resulting sentence) are therefore illegal. A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the “legality” of the resulting sentence. Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding “a traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that the sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction”). Ramirez could have and should have raised the instant claim on direct appeal from his conviction
3 and sentence or, if appropriate, by a timely motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- D.A. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 888 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)