Vidiek Rodriguez v. State

152 So. 3d 1290, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 176, 2015 WL 71684
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 7, 2015
Docket4D14-2511
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 So. 3d 1290 (Vidiek Rodriguez 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
Vidiek Rodriguez v. State, 152 So. 3d 1290, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 176, 2015 WL 71684 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vidiek Rodriguez petitions this court alleging that he received ineffective assistance from his appellate counsel. Rodriguez argues that counsel should have filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentencing error and argued on appeal that the trial court erred in sentencing a first time felony offender to prison without ordering a presentence investigation report as required by rule 3.710(a). The state agrees that Rodriguez may be entitled to resentencing pursuant to Hernandez v. State, 137 So.3d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Accordingly, we grant petitioner a new appeal to allow appellate counsel to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. This opinion shall be filed with the lower tribunal and treated as a notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the lower court shall appoint counsel to represent him on the appeal, which will proceed under a new case number.

STEVENSON, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JONATHAN LACUE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 So. 3d 1290, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 176, 2015 WL 71684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidiek-rodriguez-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.