IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JUAN INES BARRIERA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-630

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 29, 2016

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Keith A. Carsten, Judge.

Juan I. Barriera, Madison, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Juan Barriera appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Barriera candidly acknowledges 

that his sentence "is not technically illegal." Nevertheless, he argues that the 

postconviction court erred by not granting him habeas corpus relief to rectify a "manifest 

injustice." We write to explain why Barriera is not entitled to relief.
2

In 1994, following a jury trial, Barriera was convicted of armed burglary of a 

dwelling, a first-degree felony punishable by up to life in prison. § 810.02(2)(b), Fla. Stat. 

(1994).1 He was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender ("HVFO") to serve life in 

prison, with the trial court also orally pronouncing that Barriera "would not be eligible for 

parole for at least fifteen years."2 This court affirmed Barriera's judgment and sentence

without opinion. Barriera v. State, 661 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Over the ensuing years, Barriera filed several motions seeking postconviction 

relief, which were all denied by the lower court. His appeals of the denial orders were 

also unsuccessful. In 2015, Barriera, through counsel, wrote a letter to the Florida 

Commission on Offender Review, inquiring as to his parole eligibility for the armed 

burglary conviction. The commission responded that, due to the nature and the timing of 

his offense, Barriera would essentially never be eligible for parole. Barriera, thereafter, 

filed his present motion, arguing that his sentence is illegal and, more particularly, that a 

manifest injustice has occurred because the trial court intended that he be eligible for 

parole, yet the Commission on Offender Review determined otherwise. In the order on 

appeal, the postconviction court held that Barriera's sentence was not illegal and the 

transcript from the sentencing hearing did not demonstrate that the sentencing court 

intended for Barriera to receive parole.

Citing to Johnson v. State, 9 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), and Stephens v.

State, 974 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), Barriera essentially asks that we treat his 

 

1 Barriera was also convicted of two other felonies which are not pertinent to this 

appeal.

2 The written judgment and sentence also reads that Barriera would have "no 

parole for 15 years."
3

appeal as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and, much like our sister courts in those 

two cases, grant relief, directing the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing and to 

reconsider his sentence to avoid a manifest injustice. Because we perceive significant 

differences between Barriera's sentencing and those in Stephens and Johnson, we 

decline the invitation.

In Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992), the Florida Supreme Court held 

that first-degree felonies punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment 

are subject to enhancement sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute. 594 

So. 2d at 267–68. The court also held that sentencing under the HFO and HVFO statutes 

is permissive, not mandatory. Id. Nevertheless, the trial judges in Stephens and Johnson

were both under the impression that they were required to impose a life sentence on a 

defendant convicted of a first-degree felony punishable by up to life and who qualified for 

sentencing as a habitual felony offender. See Johnson, 9 So. 3d at 641; Stephens, 974 

So. 2d at 456. 

In the present case, unlike in Johnson and Stephens, the trial court was not under 

the misapprehension that, because Barriera qualified for HVFO sentencing, the 

imposition of the life sentence was mandatory. Furthermore, it is evident from the trial

court's comments at sentencing that the court believed the life sentence was entirely 

justified and only mentioned parole because it thought it was required to do so. Thus, 

although the court failed to perceive that by imposing an HVFO life sentence, Barriera 

would not be eligible for parole, see Johnson, 9 So. 3d at 641 (citations omitted), we 

conclude that no manifest injustice exists to justify resentencing. Cf. Lewis v. State, 625 

So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (affirming life sentence for HFO defendant despite 
4

trial court's inaccurate statement during sentencing concerning possibility of early release

from prison because the trial court's intent to impose a life sentence was unambiguous).

Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court's denial of Barriera's motion to 

correct illegal sentence and deny his request for habeas corpus relief.3 

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

 

3 We note that a scrivener's error exists in the judgment and sentence. Although 

the trial court orally pronounced that it was sentencing Barriera as a habitual violent felony 

offender, the box for the HVFO sentencing on the armed burglary of a dwelling conviction 

was not checked. As we have previously held, the "oral pronouncement of sentence 

controls over the written document." Gray v. State, 915 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2005) (citing Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003)). However, this issue 

has not been preserved. See Johnson v. State, 954 So. 2d 702, 702-03 (Fla. 1st DCA

2007) (refusing to correct failure to check "concurrent" on written sentence, a scrivener's 

error, "because the issue was not preserved for appeal by the filing of a timely motion to 

correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) (citing 

Proctor v. State, 901 So. 2d 994, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Aument v. State, 868 So. 2d 

682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004))).