Court Opinion

ID: 9905397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 15:04:45.477173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:26.955068
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                      Opinion filed November 29, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-955
                      Lower Tribunal No. F15-23662
                          ________________

                               Felipe Lizano,
                                 Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           The State of Florida,
                                Appellee.

      An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian, Judge.

     Felipe Lizano, in proper person.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
     Self-represented appellant Felipe Lizano appeals a May 16, 2023

order denying Lizano’s May 3, 2023 postconviction motion to correct what

Lizano asserts is an illegal sentence. In his postconviction motion (and on

appeal), Lizano argues that the trial court’s December 6, 2017 amended

sentencing order – designating Lizano as an habitual felony offender – that

corrected an October 4, 2017 sentencing order (mitigating the earlier

sentence), violated the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.

     The record, though, reveals that the challenged amended sentencing

order was entered merely to reflect the oral habitual felony offender

designation pronouncement made at the September 27, 2017 sentencing

hearing. The trial court, therefore, did not err in denying Lizano’s

postconviction motion.

      Affirmed.1

1
  Lizano argues that, during two other hearings in this case, occurring on
October 4 and October 12, 2017, the trial court failed to designate Lizano as
an habitual felony offender. Lizano bore the burden of attaching to his
postconviction motion copies of the transcripts of these proceeedings, which
he failed to do. See Cox v. State, 221 So. 3d 723, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
(“In meeting his burden on a motion to correct illegal sentence, the defendant
may not rely on facts beyond the face of the record.”); Williams v. State, 957
So. 2d 600, 604 (Fla. 2007) (concluding that it is the defendant’s burden “to
demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record”). Hence,
without opining on the merits of this argument, our affirmance is without
prejudice to Lizano filing a renewed postconviction motion attaching copies
of the relevant transcripts that Lizano asserts support his argument in this
regard.

                                      2