Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2019

Planas v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided February 13, 2019 · Emas, Hendon, Scales

271 So. 3d 76 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Roosevelt Smith v. the State of Florida (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
ENIEL PLANAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)
LARRY WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)
DIEGO JIMENEZ v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)
JOSE D. RAMIREZ v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
ROQUE ESTEBAN CALAFELL v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court's order, which denied Planas' Motion to Correct an Unlawful Sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The motion, while purportedly seeking to correct an illegal sentence, was instead an attack on both the conviction and the sentence. A motion under rule 3.800(a) is not available where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction (and, by extension, the "legality" of the sentence). Lopez v. State, 2 So.3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ; Coughlin v. State, 932 So.2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that "a traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that the sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction"). Planas could have and should have raised the instant claim on direct appeal from his conviction and sentence or, if appropriate, by a timely motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.