ERROL LATSON
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 claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[1] A vindictive sentencing claim cannot be raised through a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
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“a claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a motion to correct illegal sentence under [r]ule 3.800(a).”
The court restated the established proposition regarding the improper vehicle for raising vindictive sentencing claims.
Errol Latson was convicted of first-degree murder and received a life sentence. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence asserting that the tr…
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 Plea Offer Rejection cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 24, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1132 Lower Tribunal No. F10-6101A ________________
Errol Latson, 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, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge.
Errol Latson, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Jason Michael Ross, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR JJ.
MILLER, J.
2 Appellant, Errol Latson, challenges an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). His motion asserted that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence after he failed to accept the plea offer extended to him by the prosecutor shortly before trial. Casting aside the nondiscretionary nature of his life sentence for first-degree murder, we reiterate the proposition that “a claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a motion to correct illegal sentence under [r]ule 3.800(a).” Morales v. State, 909 So. 2d 478, 478-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing collected cases); see also § 775.082(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). Treating Latson’s motion as having been filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 yields no different result, as we affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal in 2019. See Latson v. State, 276 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Accordingly, we affirm the order under review. Affirmed.