The State of Florida v. Efren Yero
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMarch 11, 2020
Docket3D19-0192
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 11, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-192
Lower Tribunal No. 79-4932
________________
The State of Florida,
Appellant,
vs.
Efren Yero,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian,
Judge.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellant.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellee.
Before SCALES, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
SCALES, J.
The State seeks to appeal the trial court’s January 30, 2019 order that, pursuant
to this Court’s mandate,1 vacates Efren Yero’s sentence and directs that Yero be
resentenced at a future sentencing hearing. Yero has moved to dismiss the instant
appeal, claiming that the January 30, 2019 order is not one of the enumerated
appealable orders set forth in section 924.07(1) of the Florida Statutes (2019) and
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1). We agree with Yero and,
therefore, dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The State does not argue that the order falls into any category of appeals
authorized by section 924.07(1) or rule 9.140(c)(1). Instead, the State suggests that,
in order to assert jurisdiction over this otherwise non-appealable order, we should
reach the merits of the State’s appeal by treating Yero’s motion to dismiss the appeal
as a motion to enforce this Court’s mandate, and deny same. The State, however,
cites no authority to support this creative proposition; nor is the State’s position
supported by the record. Indeed, by entering the January 30, 2019 order the trial
court has already taken steps – entirely consistent with this Court’s mandate in Yero
1
Yero v. State, 217 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Yero I”). In Yero I, we applied
this Court’s decision in Carter v. State, 215 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), quashed
by 44 Fla. L. Weekly S125 (Fla. Jan. 3, 2019) – which relied upon the then-
applicable Florida Supreme Court precedent articulated in Atwell v. State, 197 So.
3d 1040 (Fla. 2016) – and vacated Yero’s 155-year prison sentence. This Court
remanded the cause for resentencing by the trial court. On the merits, the State
argues, as it did below, that this Court’s mandate is no longer good law in light of
the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla.
2018), a decision that receded from Atwell.
2
I – to enforce the mandate by vacating Yero’s sentence and scheduling a
resentencing hearing. It is the State, not Yero, that has prematurely sought
affirmative relief from this Court before a final sentencing order could be entered
below.
We decline the State’s invitation to assert our appellate jurisdiction when none
exists. The Florida Legislature has expressly and clearly delineated the parameters
of this Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals brought by the State; we have jurisdiction
to review only those orders enumerated in section 924.07(1) and rule 9.140(c)(1).
See State v. Lundy, 233 So. 3d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). As the State all but
concedes that the challenged order is not in that schedule, we grant Yero’s motion
to dismiss the instant appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to either party
filing a timely notice of appeal after a final, appealable sentencing order has been
entered by the trial court.
Appeal dismissed.
3