Paris v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paris v. State

156 So. 3d 578, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 999, 2015 WL 357079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

Docket3D14-1402

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 So. 3d 578 (Paris v. State) 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.

Bluebook

Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 999, 2015 WL 357079 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

LAGOA, J.

Rhondel Paris appeals from an order denying his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s denial.

“A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes ‘a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” Rutherford v. State, 93 So.3d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001)); see also Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc) (“[Rule 3.800(a)] is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.” Instead, this rule “is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law.”).

Here, appellant does not explain how his sentence fails to comport with either the statutory or constitutional limitations. Instead, appellant’s motion solely asserts that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors during his sentencing and *579 that, therefore, he is entitled to be resen-tenced. Because we find that appellant’s motion is legally insufficient to show that his sentence was illegal pursuant to rule 3.800(a), we affirm the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LAGOA, J.

Rhondel Paris appeals from an order denying his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s denial.

“A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is intended to address cases in which the sentence imposes ‘a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” Rutherford v. State, 93 So.3d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001)); see also Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc) (“[Rule 3.800(a)] is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.” Instead, this rule “is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law.”).

Here, appellant does not explain how his sentence fails to comport with either the statutory or constitutional limitations. Instead, appellant’s motion solely asserts that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors during his sentencing and *579 that, therefore, he is entitled to be resen-tenced. Because we find that appellant’s motion is legally insufficient to show that his sentence was illegal pursuant to rule 3.800(a), we affirm the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 3d 578, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 999, 2015 WL 357079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paris-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack