Michel Hernandez Sarmiento v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-1060
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1060 Lower Tribunal Nos. F20-13587, F22-9173, F21-12560 ________________

Michel Hernandez Sarmiento, 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, David Young, Judge.

Michel Hernandez Sarmiento, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Haccord Curry, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before MILLER, BOKOR, and GOODEN, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, Michel Hernandez Sarmiento, challenges the trial court's

summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion

seeking additional jail credit. We affirm the trial court's determination that

the motion was legally insufficient. But we are constrained to reverse and

remand with instructions to the trial court to allow appellant leave to amend

within sixty days. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761–62 (Fla. 2007)

(explaining that a legally insufficient motion for postconviction relief should

be denied without prejudice to allow leave to amend); Belanger v. State, 146

So. 3d 136, 137–38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[I]t appears this was the

defendant’s first attempt to file a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion[,] . . . .

[hence,] the trial court should have entered ‘a nonfinal, nonappealable order

allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion.’” (quoting Fla. R. Crim.

P. 3.850(f)(2))).

Affirmed in part and remanded.