JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ
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 double jeopardy challenge to dual convictions is not properly raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), but a sentence imposed in violation of the applicable minimum mandatory statute may be corrected on remand.
[1] A double jeopardy challenge to the validity of dual convictions raises factual issues underlying the judgment and is not properly addressed under Florida Rule of Criminal…
[2] When aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is charged, the applicable minimum mandatory sentence depends on the type of weapon: aggravated assault with a firearm requir…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 double jeopardy argument is a challenge to the judgment, not the sentence. It also raises factual issues underlying the judgment, which if the double jeopardy argument has merit, cannot be determined on the face of the judgment. Thus, Rule 3.800(a) does not provide an appropriate remedy.”
Court's explanation for why double jeopardy claims cannot be addressed under Rule 3.800(a)
Rodriguez was convicted of attempted robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to ten years in prison with a ten-year minimum …
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 Double Jeopardy Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D20-185
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 24, 2020
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob Leblanc, Judge.
Jose Manuel Rodriguez, Indiantown, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Jose M. Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part. Rodriguez argues that his dual convictions for attempted robbery and aggravated assault violate double jeopardy principles. “A double jeopardy argument is a challenge
2 to the judgment, not the sentence. It also raises factual issues underlying the judgment, which if the double jeopardy argument has merit, cannot be determined on the face of the judgment. Thus, Rule 3.800(a) does not provide an appropriate remedy.” Smith v. State, 886 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Rodriguez’s double jeopardy claim. Rodriguez next asserts that he was improperly sentenced to ten years in prison with a ten-year minimum mandatory for his aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction. He is correct. When this crime occurred in 2012, aggravated assault with a firearm required the imposition of a three-year minimum mandatory prison term. See § 775.087(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). However, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (other than a firearm) did not have a minimum mandatory sentence. See Smith v. State, 639 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The maximum sentence for this charge will also need to be recalculated with a corrected scoresheet. 1 For these reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further action consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, COHEN and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
1 Both the plea form and judgment state that Rodriguez pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. However, the criminal punishment code scoresheet and the trial court’s order denying Rodriguez’s motion to correct illegal sentence indicate that he pled guilty to aggravated assault with a firearm. On remand, this inconsistency should be rectified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hinton v. Hinton, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Smith v. State, 639 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)