GILBERTO ALVAREZ
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.
A motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging a constitutional right established after the two-year filing period does not qualify for the retroactivity exception because Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively.
[1] A constitutional right established in Erlinger v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The term 'life' is sufficiently definite so that it can be understood and applied.”
Ratliff v. State, cited for the proposition that a life sentence is not unconstitutionally indefinite under the Florida Constitution.
Gilberto Alvarez appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County regarding criminal procedure claims raised in a Rule 3.850 motion. The ap…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1203 Lower Tribunal Nos. F77-29683, F77-29684 ________________
Gilberto Alvarez, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Hernandez, Judge.
Gilberto Alvarez, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2) (exempting, from the rule’s two-year time limitation, motions alleging that “the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively, and the claim is made within 2 years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing the retroactivity[.]”); Wainwright v. State, SC2025-0708, 2025 WL 1561151, at *5-6 (Fla. June3, 2025) (concluding that the purpose of the United Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) “is to conform criminal procedure to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee”; that Erlinger “is not a development of fundamental significance under our existing retroactivity test”; and holding that Erlinger does not apply retroactively); see also Padgett v. State, No. 3D25-349, 2025 WL 1172840, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA April 23, 2025) (“A life sentence is not impermissible ‘indefinite imprisonment’ under the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const.” (citing Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (“Any sentence, even one of a short duration, can potentially exceed a defendant's life span. The fact that the judicial system has no way of knowing how long the defendant will live and therefore cannot know how long the defendant will be incarcerated does not render a life sentence unconstitutionally indefinite. It is abundantly clear that the Legislature, by prescribing a sentence of life imprisonment, intends that the