JEAN CLAUDE AIME LAPORTE
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.
LaPorte appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentencing error. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial because LaPorte's motion failed to establish that he received an illegal general sentence; instead, he received consecutive sentences.
The trial court properly denied the motion because LaPorte failed to establish that he received an illegal general sentence. LaPorte received consecutive sentences, not a general sentence, which are legally distinct concepts.
“ordered all terms to be served consecutive per count . . . to a maximum of 300 years”
LaPorte's own characterization of his sentence, which demonstrates he received consecutive sentences rather than an illegal general sentence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaPorte was convicted of multiple offenses and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling a maximum of 300 years. He filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion to corr…
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 Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 21, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1787 Lower Tribunal No. F13-18863A
Jean Claude Aime LaPorte, 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, Carlos H. Gamez, Judge.
Jean Claude Aime LaPorte, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Jean LaPorte timely appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Sentencing Error. Because LaPorte's Motion stated that the sentencing court “ordered all terms to be served consecutive per count . . . to a maximum of 300 years,” the trial court in his postconviction proceeding was correct to deny the Motion as “insufficient to support" the contention that he received an illegal general sentence. See Carroll v. State, 361 So. 2d 144, 147 (Fla. 1978) (“A general sentence . . . occurs when the trial court imposes only one sentence after a defendant has been convicted of several offenses. It is distinguished from consecutive sentences, where one sentence succeeds another[.]").
Affirmed.