ELLIOTT VARGAS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Elliott Vargas appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court failed to impose mandatory minimum sentences as required by Florida law. The appellate court agrees that the sentences are illegal and reverses, remanding for resentencing.
The trial court erred in failing to impose mandatory minimum sentences on counts 1 through 5, making those sentences illegal. The case is remanded for resentencing, at which time the trial court will address whether consecutive sentencing was appropriate.
[1] A sentence is illegal and correctable under Rule 3.800(a) if it is one that no judge could possibly impose under any set of factual circumstances.
[2] A failure to impose a mandatory minimum sentence, where the judge has no discretion, renders the sentence illegal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If a sentence is imposed that 'no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances,' then it is an illegal sentence correctable under rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a sentence is illegal and subject to correction under Rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVargas was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, two counts of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, two counts of aggrav…
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 Sentencing Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Elliott Vargas, the defendant, appéals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. Because his sentence is illegal, we reverse. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a).
The defendant was convicted of one count of armed burglary of a dwelling with a firearm (count 1), two counts of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm (counts 2 and 3), two counts of aggravated *916battery with a firearm (counts 4 and 5), and one count of aggravated assault (count 7). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 25 years’ imprisonment on counts 1 through 5; and .a concurrent term of 20 years’ imprisonment with a 20-year mandatory minimum on count 7. We per cu-riam affirmed the convictions and sentences. See Vargas v. State, 906 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
The defendant thereafter filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, arguing that his sentences were illegal because (1) they were not imposed as mandatory minimum sentences as required by section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and (2) they were improperly ordered to run consecutively.1 The trial court denied the motion. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in so ruling because the court was required to sentence him to mandatory minimum sentences. We agree.
If a sentence is imposed that “no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances,” then it is an illegal sentence correctable under rule 3.800(a). Thomas v. State, 932 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (quoting Blakley v. State, 746 So.2d 1182, 1186-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Where the judge has no discretion in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence, the failure to do so makes the sentence illegal. See State v. Fulton, 878 So.2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); State v. Row, 478 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Here, the sentencing court erred in failing to impose any mandatory minimum sentences on counts 1 through 5, and the State properly concedes that the defendant is entitled to be re-sentenced on those counts.
As for the defendant’s claim that his sentences were improperly imposed consecutively, because re-sentencing will require the trial court to conduct a new hearing (with defendant and his counsel present), the propriety of consecutive sentencing will be determined then.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Solomon v. State, 254 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ile "[m]otions seeking to impose mandatory minimums are typically filed by the State ... nothing [in the rule] prohibits a defendant from filing such a motion." Burks v. State , 237 So. 3d 1060, 1062 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Vargas v. State , 188 So. 3d 915, 916 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ). Solomon was convicted in count one of armed burglary of a dwelling and in count three of first-degree felony murder. Both crimes are among those listed in section 775.087(2)(a) to require the imposition of a minimum…1 / 2
-
Burks v. State, 237 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…lso required to impose a concurrent mandatory minimum sentence within the range of twenty-five years to life under section 775.087(2)(a)(3) ). Reversed and remanded for resentencing. As the Fifth District Court of Appeal stated in Vargas v. State, 188 So. 3d 915, 916 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), "[m]otions seeking to impose mandatory minimums are typically filed by the State, but nothing prohibits a defendant from filing such a motion." The 2007 versions of the statutes at issue are unchanged from the 2000 ver…
-
Earl v. State, 276 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2021)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. ROW, 478 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Talmage E. Thomas v. State, 932 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- State v. Fulton, 878 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)