EDWIN SANCHEZ
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.
Sanchez appealed the trial court's denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion alleging a plea agreement violation. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that while plea agreement violations are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a), the trial court should have converted the motion to a rule 3.850 motion and given Sanchez an opportunity to present his claim.
A trial court should treat a rule 3.800(a) motion as a rule 3.850 motion in the interest of justice where the motion would be timely under rule 3.850. The trial court should either refute the claim with record attachments or allow the movant leave to amend.
[1] A trial court should convert a rule 3.800(a) motion to a rule 3.850 motion in the interest of justice when the asserted claim would be cognizable only under rule 3.850 an…
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 filed under rule 3.800(a) should be treated as a motion filed under rule 3.850 where it is in the interest of justice to do so, and the motion would be timely under rule 3.850.”
Establishes the standard for converting between the two procedural rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez filed a rule 3.800(a) motion claiming a violation of a plea agreement. His sentence became final in February 2022. At the time the 3.800(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 Violation Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sanchez’s 3.800(a) motion alleged a violation of a plea agreement which even if true does not create an illegal sentence. McLendon v. State, 58 So. 3d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Such a claim would have to be raised in a timely and legally sufficient rule 3.850 motion and is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a). However,
a motion filed under rule 3.800(a) should be treated as a motion filed under rule 3.850 where it is in the interest of justice to do so, and the motion would be timely under rule 3.850. Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 243 n.8 (Fla. 2007). While it is now too late for Sanchez to file such a motion as his sentence became final in February 2022, at the time the 3.800(a) motion was filed, it would have been timely, and the trial court should have treated the motion as a timely rule 3.850 motion and either refuted the claim with record attachments or allowed Sanchez leave to amend pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007).
Therefore, the trial court’s order denying Sanchez’s rule 3.800(a) motion is reversed and remanded. The trial court shall provide Sanchez with an opportunity to raise his claim in a facially sufficient postconviction motion for relief pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EDWARDS, C.J., and MAKAR and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
- Dewayne R. McLENDON v. State, 58 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)