FERNANDO SOTOLONGO
v.
THE 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 trial court properly denies a rule 3.800(a) motion challenging sentencing when the motion raises claims that are procedurally barred or not cognizable under that rule.
[1] Double jeopardy claims and challenges to upward departure sentences without written reasons are not cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions for correction of sentence.
[2] A trial court's sentencing decision may be affirmed under the 'tipsy coachman' doctrine if the sentence is legally sufficient based on any ground in the record, even if t…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[D]enial is appropriate where a legally sufficient motion is conclusively refuted by the record, provided that the court reviews the record and attaches relevant portions of the record to its order.”
Collins v. State, establishing the standard for denying rule 3.800(a) motions
Fernando Sotolongo appealed his sentence imposed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. Sotolongo filed a rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentence.…
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 Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed April 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1854 Lower Tribunal No. F97-31824C
________________
Fernando Sotolongo,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michelle Delancy, Judge. Fernando Sotolongo, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. . . . [O]ffenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.”); Collins v. State, 369 So. 3d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (“[D]enial is appropriate where a legally sufficient motion is conclusively refuted by the record, provided that the court reviews the record and attaches relevant portions of the record to its order.”); Smith v. State, 336 So. 3d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (holding 3.800(a) motion may not challenge “the procedure leading to [defendant’s] sentence”); George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[Double jeopardy] claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion, as they are procedurally barred.”); Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[A]n upward departure sentence without written reasons . . . claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a).”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]he ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine[] allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that ‘reaches the right result, but for the
3
wrong reasons’ so long as ‘there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’”) (quoting Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644–45 (Fla. 1999)); Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007) (“[N]ot all errors committed at a criminal sentencing require reversal. The sentence may be affirmed if such errors are harmless.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Jackson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- T'shumbie Collins v. State, 369 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
- Smith v. State, 336 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)