RODRIGUEZ v. FLORIDA (2026)

In 2009, after a jury trial, Appellant Alejandro Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced for six counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Rodriguez v. State, 77 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The substance of Rodriguez's claims in this Rule 3.800(a) motion is that the underlying convictions were illegal, not the underlying sentence.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to challenge the underlying conviction and then argue that the sentence is illegal as a result of the illegality of the conviction. See Smith v. State, 399 So. 3d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“We affirm because Smith's motion is, in reality, an attack on the underlying conviction and, only by extension, the legality of the sentence. This is not a cognizable claim under Rule 3.800(a).”); George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quotation modified) (quoting Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)) (“Here, Appellant is attempting to challenge his convictions, not his sentences, because ‘although couched as an attack on his sentences, [the appellant's claims are] inherently attacking his convictions because correcting the alleged double jeopardy violation would require vacating the underlying conviction.’ Thus, Appellant's claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion, as they are procedurally barred.”).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.