final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)
from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue
Venzer, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 96-38920
Masis, in proper person.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ.
defendant, Alvis Masis, appeals from the denial of his
postconviction motion to correct an illegal sentence filed
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
December 5, 1996, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the
defendant for for the murder of Erica Cano ("the
victim"), a homicide committed that day. On March 4,
2009, a new arrest warrant was issued, along with a felony
information, charging the defendant with the second degree
murder of the victim. On July 21, 2009, the arrest warrant
was served on the defendant when he returned to this country.
The evidence established that the victim was found lying in
the bathtub in a motel room with a wire hanger wrapped around
her neck. The medical examiner determined that the cause of
death was strangulation and the manner of death was a
homicide. Upon his arrest, the defendant gave a taped
statement wherein he admitted to becoming angry with the
victim, or as he described it, he was "full of anger, of
madness" when he realized the victim intended to leave
him. The defendant explained that he and the victim argued
and, at some point, he grabbed the victim by the neck,
dragged her into the bathroom, reached for something (which
turned out to be a wire hanger), grabbed the victim by the
neck again, wrapped the wire hanger around the victim's
neck, and threw the victim into the bathtub. When she did not
move anymore, he left the motel. The defendant told the
detective that he realized that he should have simply ended
the relationship, and now he had to pay for his guilt.
7, 2011, the defendant pled guilty to second degree murder,
and pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced to
twenty years in state prison with credit for time served.
Since his plea, the defendant has attacked below, and
continues to attack here, his sentence on the ground that the
sentence imposed is illegal because he was sentenced under
the 1995 sentencing guidelines scoresheet which was
invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court in Heggs v.
State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000).
October 23, 2012, the defendant filed a motion for
postconviction relief under rule 3.850 claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel, alleging, in part, that his trial
counsel should have objected to the guidelines scoresheet
used to calculate the permissible sentencing range in his
case. In his motion, the defendant cited to Heggs
and claimed that, had the correct scoresheet been used, he
would not have been sentenced to more than 12.5 years in
prison. Following the State's response, the trial court
denied the motion, and the defendant did not appeal the
denial of his 2012 rule 3.850 motion.
March 7, 2014, the defendant raised the same challenge, but
this time he claimed his sentence was illegal under rule
3.800(a). However, the defendant withdrew his motion after
the State advised the defendant that if the trial court set
aside the plea, the State was prepared to try the defendant
for second degree murder, and if convicted, he could receive
a life sentence.
September 25, 2015, the defendant raised his scoresheet claim
again in a subsequent rule 3.800(a) motion, claiming that his
sentence was an illegal sentence because the guidelines
scoresheet invalidated by Heggs was used to compute
the permissible sentencing range relied on by the State when
it negotiated the plea with the defendant and by the trial
court when it accepted the negotiated plea. The trial court
denied the motion, and this Court affirmed that ruling on
appeal. Torres v. State, 199 So.3d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA
the defendant returned to the trial court in 2017 and filed
another rule 3.800(a) motion attacking the legality of his
sentence on the same grounds and additionally claiming that
the amount of gain time he has received is incorrect and that
he should be resentenced under a 1994 sentencing guidelines
scoresheet. The trial court concluded that the