ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ
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 motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to challenge the underlying conviction and then argue the sentence is illegal as a result of the conviction's illegality.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not a cognizable vehicle for challenging the underlying conviction, even when framed as an attack on the se…
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 an illegal sentence cannot be used to challenge the underlying conviction and then argue that the sentence is illegal as a result of the illegality of the conviction.”
Court's statement of applicable law regarding the scope of Rule 3.800(a) motions
Alejandro Rodriguez was convicted by jury in 2009 of six counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age and was sentenced accordingly.…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 19, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0676 Lower Tribunal No. F08-6393
Alejandro Rodriguez, 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, Christine Hernandez, Judge.
Alejandro Rodriguez, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In 2009, after a jury trial, Appellant Alejandro Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced for six counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Rodriguez v. State, 77 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The substance of Rodriguez's claims in this Rule 3.800(a) motion is that the underlying convictions were illegal, not the underlying sentence.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to challenge the underlying conviction and then argue that the sentence is illegal as a result of the illegality of the conviction. See Smith v. State, 399 So. 3d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“We affirm because Smith's motion is, in reality, an attack on the underlying conviction and, only by extension, the legality of the sentence. This is not a cognizable claim under Rule 3.800(a).”); George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quotation modified) (quoting Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)) (“Here, Appellant is attempting to challenge his convictions, not his sentences, because 'although couched as an attack on his sentences, [the appellant's claims are] inherently attacking his convictions because correcting the alleged double jeopardy violation would require vacating the underlying conviction.' Thus, Appellant's claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion, as they are procedurally barred.").
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)