Gonzalez v. State, 208 So. 3d 143

Background

Mario Gonzalez entered a global plea in 2000 resolving multiple burglary, robbery, and grand theft charges; sentences included HVO and PRR minimum-mandatory enhancements across cases.
In case F99-993, Count I (burglary) received a 30-year HVO term; Count II (grand theft) received a 5-year term that was at times described as consecutive to other sentences and at other times described as concurrent.
In 2001 Gonzalez filed a Rule 3.800 motion; the trial court struck PRR designations; this Court (Gonzalez I) remanded for deletion of PRR on Count II.
Gonzalez alleges a 2003 amended sentencing order made Count II concurrent with Count I and all other cases, but the 2003 order is not in the record. He served the reduced sentence for years.
In 2013 the trial court entered an order (May 21, 2013) stating Count II was consecutive to Count I; Gonzalez later challenged that amendment as violating double jeopardy in subsequent Rule 3.800 motions.
The trial court denied Gonzalez’s 2014 3.800 motion as "successive;" the Third District reversed that denial (in part) and remanded for the trial court to decide Gonzalez’s double jeopardy claim on the merits, while affirming denial of a Hale-based argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2013 sentencing amendment (making Count II consecutive) violated double jeopardy	Gonzalez: 2003 reduction to concurrent sentences was final and relied on for ~10 years; increasing it to consecutive retriggers punishment and violates double jeopardy	State: Issue was previously raised in Gonzalez II rehearing and therefore is successive / barred by law of the case or collateral estoppel	The appellate court held the double jeopardy claim had not been decided on the merits previously and is not barred; remanded for merits consideration
Whether collateral estoppel or law-of-the-case bars Gonzalez’s successive 3.800 motion	Gonzalez: Not barred because he first raised double jeopardy in an improper rehearing; prior denials were not merits decisions	State: Denial of rehearing in Gonzalez II disposed of the issue and prevents relitigation	Court: Denial of rehearing (unelaborated) did not decide the issue on the merits; collateral estoppel and law-of-the-case do not bar the claim
Whether Hale v. State provides relief for consecutive enhanced sentences arising from a single criminal episode	Gonzalez: Consecutive enhanced sentences are improper under Hale when offenses arise from a single episode	State: Argued procedural defects; trial court previously resolved PRR issue	Court: Gonzalez previously withdrew and abandoned the Hale claim; trial court correctly denied rehearing on this ground
Whether the trial court’s procedural denial was harmless because record unclear on actual concurrency across cases	Gonzalez: Requests merits adjudication and is amenable to remand for factual clarification	State: Suggests harmless error because other consecutive relations might remain in effect	Court: Remand may be necessary to determine actual sentencing relationships; case remanded for merits and factual determinations

Key Cases Cited

Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993) (consecutive enhanced sentences and single criminal episode analysis)
Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000) (challenge to habitual-offender mandatory minimums shorter than PRR terms)
State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (collateral estoppel principles bar repetitive 3.800 claims)
Pleasure v. State, 931 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (collateral estoppel requires prior decision on the merits)
Williams v. State, 868 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (denial of successive 3.800 where prior claim not shown decided on merits was error)
Padilla v. State, 905 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (new issue raised first in rehearing is not properly before the court)
Plasencia v. State, 170 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (unelaborated denial of rehearing may not reflect merits disposition)