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.