LUIS ALBERTO PEREZ
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Perez's motion to correct an illegal sentence as moot, finding he failed to demonstrate prejudicial error where any granted relief would not have changed his sentence.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal as moot because Perez failed to show prejudicial error. Since any granted relief would not have changed his sentence by a single day, he cannot demonstrate harm remediable on appeal.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is properly denied as moot when the relief requested would not change the sentence by even one day.
[2] An appellate court may reverse a judgment or sentence only upon a determination that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved, or if unpreserved, constituted…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”
Establishes the standard for appellate reversal of sentencing decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). The trial court found the motion moot because any relief granted would not ha…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D24-2213, 3D24-2214, 3D24-2215, 3D24-2216, 3D24-2217 Lower Tribunal Nos. F96-23813B, F96-23816B, F96-23818B, F96-23820A,
F97-26254
________________ Luis Alberto Perez, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee. Appeals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge. Chase Law Florida, P.A., and Brett S. Chase (St. Petersburg), for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daniel Colmenares, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
The Appellant has failed to demonstrate that any prejudicial error occurred by the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence as moot. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”); Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255–56 (Fla. 2021) (“[H]ad [the defendant] been granted the relief he requested, his sentence would not have been changed by a single day.
Therefore, [the defendant] cannot show that the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion resulted in harm that may be remedied on appeal.”); Mitchell v. State, 309 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (affirming lower court’s dismissal of defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence as moot where the lower court found “the applicable mandatory minimum would have no effect on gain time because the defendant [was] serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole”). As a result, we affirm.
Affirmed.