LUIS ALBERTO PEREZ
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.
Luis Alberto Perez appealed the trial court's dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence as moot. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that Perez failed to demonstrate prejudicial error because any relief granted would not have changed his sentence by even a single day.
The appellate court held that Perez failed to demonstrate prejudicial error because he could not show that granting the relief requested would have changed his sentence by any amount of time. Therefore, the denial of the motion was properly dismissed as moot.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is properly dismissed as moot when the defendant cannot demonstrate that correction of the illegality would result in any change t…
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“had [the defendant] been granted the relief he requested, his sentence would not have been changed by a single day. Therefore, [the defendant] cannot show that the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion resulted in harm that may be remedied on appeal.”
Establishes the standard for mootness in sentence correction motions—a defendant must show actual harm or change in sentence to demonstrate error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez filed a motion to correct illegal sentence in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The trial court, Judge Laura Shearon Cruz presiding, deni…
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 Life Without Parole cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Appellant has failed to demonstrate that any prejudicial error occurred by the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence as moot. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”); Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255–56 (Fla. 2021) (“[H]ad [the defendant] been granted the relief he requested, his sentence would not have been changed by a single day. Therefore, [the defendant] cannot show that the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion resulted in harm that may be remedied on appeal.”); Mitchell v. State, 309 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (affirming lower court’s dismissal of defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence as moot where the lower court found “the applicable mandatory minimum would have no effect on gain time because the defendant [was] serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole”). As a result, we affirm.
Affirmed.