Luis Alberto Perez v. State of Florida
This text of Luis Alberto Perez v. State of Florida (Luis Alberto Perez v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D24-2213, 3D24-2214, 3D24-2215, 3D24-2216, 3D24-2217 Lower Tribunal Nos. F96-23813B, F96-23816B, F96-23818B, F96-23820A, F97-26254 ________________
Luis Alberto Perez, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
Appeals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge.
Chase Law Florida, P.A., and Brett S. Chase (St. Petersburg), for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daniel Colmenares, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Luis Alberto Perez v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luis-alberto-perez-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2025.