RAFAEL GONZALEZ SANTIAGO v. STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 15, 2024
• Docket: 23-0394
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D23-394 Lower Tribunal No. 19-316-CFA _____________________________

RAFAEL GONZALEZ SANTIAGO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry County. James D. Sloan, Judge.

March 15, 2024

WHITE, J.

Rafael Gonzalez Santiago appeals the judgment and sentence entered after he

was found guilty on multiple counts.1 Santiago argues that the judgment does not

1 This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. correctly reflect the trial court’s verdict2 on Counts 1, 3 and 4, and the sentences on

Counts 1 and 4 exceed the maximum permissible sentence. The State agrees.3

Therefore, we reverse the provisions of the judgment that designate: the crime

on Counts 1 and 4; the offense statute number on Count 4; and the degree of crime

on Counts 1, 3 and 4. On remand, the trial court shall correct the judgment to

designate: the crime as sexual battery (2d degree) on Count 1, and robbery on Count

4; the offense statute number as 812.13(2)(c) on Count 4; and the degree of crime as

second degree on Count 1, third degree on Count 3, and second degree on Count 4.

We also reverse the life sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 4. Because

Santiago was properly designated as a Habitual Felony Offender, the maximum

permissible sentence on each of those counts was 30 years.4 See § 775.084(4)(a)2.,

Fla. Stat. (2019). Therefore, we remand for the trial court to resentence Santiago on

Counts 1 and 4 as a Habitual Felony Offender.

Otherwise, we affirm the judgment and sentence without further discussion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL, J., concur.

2 The parties agreed to a bench trial. 3 The State also agreed in its response to Santiago’s timely rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. That motion was deemed denied, however, because the trial court did not rule on it within 60 days. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). 4 The Criminal Punishment Code did not require a longer sentence on either count. See State v. Gabriel, 314 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2021). 2 Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Rachel Page Roebuck, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED