THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
YANKER PEREZ-DIAZ, 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 State appealed a trial court's decision to grant postconviction relief and vacate a guilty plea while the case was on remand for resentencing under the sentencing guidelines. The court quashed the trial court's order, holding that once an appellate mandate issues, the trial court's role is purely ministerial and it cannot deviate from the appellate court's instructions.
A trial court is not authorized to deviate from an appellate court's mandate. Once remanded with instructions to impose a sentence under the sentencing guidelines, the trial court's role becomes purely ministerial, and it must comply with the appellate court's order without entertaining collateral motions that would frustrate that mandate.
[1] A trial court is not authorized to deviate from the terms of an appellate court's instructions.
[2] A trial court's role upon the issuance of a mandate from an appellate court is ministerial and limited to obeying the appellate court's order or decree.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court is "not authorized to deviate from the terms of an appellate court's instructions."”
Establishes the core principle that trial courts must comply with appellate mandates
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an earlier appeal, the appellate court reversed a downward departure sentence imposed after an open, non-negotiated plea and remanded for sentencin…
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 Motion To Enforce Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
.In State v. Perez-Diaz, 189 So.3d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), the State appealed the trial court’s downward departure sentence, which was imposed following an open, non-negotiated plea. We held that the trial court erred in imposing a downward departure- sentence, reversed the sentence, and remanded “for sentencing under the sentencing guidelines.” H. at 902. The mandate issued on April 28, 2016.
Following our remand, and while the case remained pending in the trial court for imposition of a sentence under the sentencing guidelines, Perez-Diaz filed a motion for postconviction reliéf. Instead of carrying out the mandate of this court, the trial court heard the motion for postconviction relief, granted the motion, and vacated the plea, the finding of guilt, the judgment and the sentence. The State filed a notice of appeal from that order.
We treat this appeal as a motion to enforce the mandate in case number 3D14-2885, grant the motion, and quash the trial court’s order granting the motion for postconviction, relief. A trial court is “not authorized to deviate from the terms of an appellate court’s instructions.” Hearns v. State, 54 So.3d 500, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (quoting Akins v. Akins, 839 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). This court reversed the sentence and remanded this cause to the trial court for the singular purpose of imposing a sentence under *1073the sentencing guidelines. The trial court’s action, regardless of how well-intentioned, violated that mandate. As we have said before: “A trial court’s role upon the issuance of a mandate from an appellate court becomes purely miriisterial, and its function is limited to obeying the appellate court’s order or decree.” Hearns, 54 So.Sd at 502. Accordingly, we quash the order vacating the guilty plea, finding of guilt, judgment and sentence1, and instruct the trial court to comply with this court’s mandate by sentencing Perez-Diaz under the sentencing guidelines.2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gomez, 247 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Ibes Gomez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…defendant an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation, instead only allowing him to offer legal argument concerning mitigating factors.2 The trial judge was “not authorized to deviate from the terms of [our] instructions.” State v. Perez-Diaz, 232 So. 3d 1072, 1072-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). To prevent any confusion, on remand, our instructions to the trial court remain that, having vacated the defendant’s convictions for grand theft in cases F14-22387 and F15-1546, it must conduct a full sentencing hearing…
Authorities Cited
- Akins v. Akins, 839 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Hearns v. State, 54 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- State v. Yanker Orlando Perez-Diaz, 189 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)