Gilberto Alvarez v. State of Florida

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1203 Lower Tribunal Nos. F77-29683, F77-29684 ________________

Gilberto Alvarez, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Hernandez, Judge.

Gilberto Alvarez, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2) (exempting, from the rule’s

two-year time limitation, motions alleging that “the fundamental constitutional

right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and

has been held to apply retroactively, and the claim is made within 2 years of

the date of the mandate of the decision announcing the retroactivity[.]”);

Wainwright v. State, SC2025-0708, 2025 WL 1561151, at *5-6 (Fla. June 3,

2025) (concluding that the purpose of the United Supreme Court’s decision

in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) “is to conform criminal

procedure to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee”; that Erlinger “is not a

development of fundamental significance under our existing retroactivity

test”; and holding that Erlinger does not apply retroactively); see also Padgett

v. State, No. 3D25-349, 2025 WL 1172840, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA April 23, 2025)

(“A life sentence is not impermissible ‘indefinite imprisonment’ under the

Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const.” (citing Ratliff v. State, 914 So.

2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (“Any sentence, even one of a short duration, can

potentially exceed a defendant's life span. The fact that the judicial system

has no way of knowing how long the defendant will live and therefore cannot

know how long the defendant will be incarcerated does not render a life

sentence unconstitutionally indefinite. It is abundantly clear that the

Legislature, by prescribing a sentence of life imprisonment, intends that the

2 defendant remain in prison for the rest of his life. The term ‘life’ is sufficiently

definite so that it can be understood and applied.”))).