JUAN JOSE 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.
Juan Jose Rodriguez appeals his convictions for three violations of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and his sentence to life in prison with mandatory twenty-five-year minimums. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but remanded for correction of the sentences to remove the erroneous inclusion of the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum provisions.
The court affirmed Rodriguez's convictions without discussion. The court remanded for the trial court to enter corrected sentences removing the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum provisions from the life sentences, as the inclusion of such minimums with life sentences is erroneous.
[1] A sentence of life imprisonment for a violation of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes does not include a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum provision, and a trial cou…
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“It is necessary, however, to remand for the entry of corrected sentences that do not include the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum provisions.”
Establishes the core holding that the sentences must be corrected to remove the mandatory minimums from the life sentences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was convicted of three violations of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes. He was sentenced to life in prison with twenty-five-year mandat…
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.
September 27, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Juan Jose Rodriguez appeals his convictions for three violations of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and his sentence to life in prison with twenty-five-year mandatory minimum provisions on each violation. We affirm, without
discussion, Rodriguez’s convictions. It is necessary, however, to remand for the entry of corrected sentences that do not include the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum provisions. See Leon v. State, 190 So. 3d 243, 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Rodriguez’s presence is not required for the trial court to make this ministerial correction. See Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57, 60−62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (determining that where the record leads to the firm conclusion that the trial court intended to impose a sentence of life in prison instead of a term-of-years sentence for the conviction under section 800.04(5)(b), remand is appropriate for the ministerial act of removing the erroneous inclusion of the twenty- five-year mandatory minimum provision in the life sentence without the defendant’s attendance).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
MAKAR, BOATWRIGHT, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank v. State, 391 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…d be is left for the trial court’s determination. Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the $50.00 monthly cost of supervision and remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the proper amount of that cost. See Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (reversing order assessing amount for public defender fees 4 or costs imposed in excess of amount agreed to and remanding for reduction of fee or evidentiary hearing). We affirm in all other respects. Affirmed in…
-
Gilbert v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”). This scrivener’s error can be corrected through a ministerial act by the trial court rather than reversing the judgment, and without the need for a resentencing hearing. See Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“Since correction of the written judgment in this case is a ministerial act, neither resentencing nor Appellant’s presence is required for this purpose.”). Therefore, appellant’s presence in court is not required for the tr…
Authorities Cited
- Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
- Maxwell Leon v. State, 190 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)