JOSE D. RAMIREZ v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed August 31, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D22-1014
    Lower Tribunal No. F17-23037B
    ________________
    Jose D. Ramirez,
    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, Teresa Pooler, Judge.
    Jose D. Ramirez, in proper person.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
    Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Jose D. Ramirez appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion
    purporting to challenge the legality of his sentence. Although captioned as
    a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 3.800(a), Ramirez’s motion is in reality a challenge to the validity
    of the underlying conviction, rather than a challenge to the legality of the
    sentence. Ramirez contends that his arrest and prosecution was the result
    of an unlawful reverse-sting operation conducted by law enforcement, and
    that his conviction (and the resulting sentence) are therefore illegal. A motion
    to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as
    here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only
    by extension, the “legality” of the resulting sentence. Planas v. State, 
    271 So. 3d 76
     (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 
    2 So. 3d 1057
    , 1059 (Fla. 3d
    DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 
    888 So. 2d 128
    , 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
    (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate
    procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”); Coughlin v.
    State, 
    932 So. 2d 1224
    , 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding “a traditional
    double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the
    sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that the sentence itself is
    illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction”). Ramirez could have
    and should have raised the instant claim on direct appeal from his conviction
    2
    and sentence or, if appropriate, by a timely motion filed pursuant to Florida
    Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
    Affirmed.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1014

Filed Date: 8/31/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2022