RHONDEL PARIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not a vehicle to re-examine sentencing procedures or consider mitigating factors.
Appellant filed a post-conviction motion arguing his sentence was illegal because the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors. The trial cou…
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 Mitigating Factors In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Rhondel Paris appeals from an order denying his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s denial.
“A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes ‘a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” Rutherford v. State, 93 So.3d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001)); see also Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc) (“[Rule 3.800(a)] is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.” Instead, this rule “is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law.”).
Here, appellant does not explain how his sentence fails to comport with either the statutory or constitutional limitations. Instead, appellant’s motion solely asserts that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors during his sentencing and *579that, therefore, he is entitled to be resen-tenced. Because we find that appellant’s motion is legally insufficient to show that his sentence was illegal pursuant to rule 3.800(a), we affirm the trial court’s order.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herby Luma v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…tinctive for its repetition. We agree with both findings of the trial court: (1) at this stage, Luma may not use a rule 3.800 motion to challenge either his 1998 sentence or his 2012 re-sentencing, as they were authorized by law, see Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); and (2) it was not necessary for the State to re-introduce evidence at the 2012 hearing in view of the trial court’s limited purpose of determining whether it would exercise discretion to impose an alternate sentence. ORDER…
-
Chestel R. Thorson v. State, 197 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…DCA 2006) (en banc); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Reed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). LaROSE, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
-
Starling T. Middleton v. State, 210 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lee v. State, 679 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1996); Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Reed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Rutherford v. State, 93 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Rutherford v. State, 93 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)