Macias v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2009
CARLOS MACIAS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D07-1071
[April 22, 2009]
On Remand from the Supreme Court of Florida
PER CURIAM.
This case is returned to us on remand from the Supreme Court of
Florida, Macias v. State, SC07-1229 (Feb. 26, 2009). The Supreme Court
quashed our decision and remanded the case for “reconsideration upon
review of the record a n d application of [the] Court’s decision in
Saintelien.” Id.
We have reviewed Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008).
There, the supreme court quashed our decision that held that a rule
3.800 motion was not the proper vehicle for reviewing a defendant’s
designation as a sexual predator. The supreme court reached the
opposite conclusion and held “that a defendant may seek correction of an
allegedly erroneous sexual predator designation by filing a rule 3.800(a)
motion to correct an illegal sentence in criminal court.” Id. at 497.
Saintelien was pending in the supreme court when we affirmed the
trial court’s denial of the defendant’s rule 3.800 motion in this case.1 We
now know that a rule 3.800 motion can be used to review the issue.
However, the supreme court was careful to limit review “to cases where it
is apparent from the face of the record that the defendant did not meet
the criteria for designation as a sexual predator.” Id.
Saintelien v. State, 937 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), rev. granted, 952
So. 2d 1191 (Fla. Mar. 28, 2007).
1
Upon review of the June 2006 motion and record attached to the
state’s response below, it is clear that the defendant is not entitled to
relief. The trial court correctly denied his motion. We note also that in
his direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, the defendant raised
the propriety of his sexual predator designation. This court affirmed and
found “that the state presented the necessary statutory predicate in
order to designate appellant a sexual predator.” Macias v. State, 708 So.
2d 1044, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Thus, the record clearly establishes
that the defendant meets “the criteria for designation as a sexual
predator.” Id. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
FARMER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court
for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 561993CF002513A.
Carlos Macias, Wewahitchka, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
