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 Lower Tribunal
No. 98-5618, Alberto Milian, Judge.
Egan Rosa, in proper person.
Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
Egan Rosa ("defendant") appeals the denial of his
motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was
entered by the trial court on May 17, 2019. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
March 22, 2001, a jury found the defendant guilty of two
counts of robbery without a firearm (Counts I and II), two
counts of aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer
(Count IV and V), and aggravated fleeing or eluding a law
enforcement officer (Count VI). On April 5, 2001, the
defendant's counsel made an ore tenus motion for a new
trial based on an erroneous jury instruction as to Counts IV
and V (aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer). The
trial court recognized that the instruction was erroneous,
and asked the parties whether a new trial was required as to
all counts the defendant was convicted of or only as to
Counts IV and V. At a subsequent hearing conducted on April
10, 2001, the defendant's counsel stated that the trial
court should only grant a new trial as to Counts IV and V.
The defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea as to Counts
IV and V-five years to run concurrently with each other and
the other counts.
defendant was later sentenced to thirty years in prison as to
Counts I and II with a ten-year minimum mandatory as an
habitual felony offender and a fifteen-year minimum mandatory
as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR); five years in prison
as to Counts IV and V; and ten years in prison with a
five-year minimum mandatory as a PRR and an habitual felony
offender as to Count VI, with all sentences to run
appeal, this court reversed one of the two counts of
aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer (Count V).
See Rosa v. State, 847 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
(Case No. 3D01-1436). The defendant filed a notice of
discretionary review with the Florida Supreme Court, which
was denied, and this court issued its mandate in the
defendant's direct appeal on April 23, 2004.
the defendant's direct appeal, he has filed in this court
various appeals from the denials of postconviction or other
motions-3D04-1130, 3D09-2162, 3D11-149, 3D15-2712, and
3D18-216. All of these appeals were affirmed.
now brings us to the defendant's latest and sixth appeal
following this court's issuance of mandate in his direct
appeal, in which he appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a)
motion entered on May 17, 2019. The crux of the arguments
raised in this postconviction motion are that: (1) trial
counsel erred by agreeing to sever Counts IV and V, and the
trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the
post-trial motion because post-trial motions must be made
within ten days of the verdict pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.590(a); and (2) as the face of the
record indicates that the trial court's granting of the
motion for new trial as to Counts IV and V was a product of
fraud, deceit, collusion, etc., his convictions and sentences
for Counts I, II, IV, and VI should be vacated.
trial court denied the defendant's latest postconviction
motion. We have reviewed the trial court's order, and
agree with its determination that the defendant's motion
was without merit and duplicative, as he has raised nearly
identical arguments in prior postconviction motions. The
trial court's order specifically referenced the lower
tribunal's order entered on January 10, 2018, which this
court affirmed in March 2018 in case number 3D18-216.
Moreover, the claims raised by the defendant are not
cognizable at any time in a rule 3.800(a) motion, and can
only be considered in a timely filed rule 3.850 motion for
postconviction relief. The time for filing a timely rule
3.850 motion has long passed. Thus, we affirm the trial
court's denial of the defendant's successive and
meritless rule 3.800(a) motion for postconviction relief. In
doing so, we caution the defendant that his filing of any
further frivolous pro se pleadings relating ...