Alejandro Rodriguez v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 19, 2026
Docket3D2026-0676
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 19, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D26-0676
Lower Tribunal No. F08-6393
________________
Alejandro Rodriguez,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Hernandez, Judge.
Alejandro Rodriguez, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
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.
2