Joe Martínez, the former commissioner of Miami-Dade County, was sentenced on Monday to 34 and a half months in state prison, following his conviction for illicit compensation and conspiracy. These charges stem from receiving $15,000 in bribes from local business owners in exchange for promoting an ordinance advantageous to their business interests.
Despite the severity of the sentence, Martínez will not immediately begin his prison term. He remains free on a $15,000 bond while his legal team prepares an appeal, with the initial proceedings scheduled for September 21, 2026. The judge decreed that both sentences should be served concurrently and acknowledged the time Martínez had already spent in custody, potentially reducing his actual time behind bars if the appeal is unsuccessful.
The Bribery Scandal and Legal Accusations
An investigation by the state attorney's office uncovered that between 2016 and 2017, Martínez received three payments of $5,000 each from Jorge Negrín, owner of Extra Supermarket, and his landlord Sergio Delgado. The purpose of these payments was to encourage the then-commissioner to back legislation allowing storage containers on Negrín’s property, which had numerous code violations. Although the ordinance was never approved or even voted on, the prosecution argued that accepting money for an official act constituted corruption.
Prosecutors Tim VanderGiesen and William González highlighted that the payments stopped as soon as the legislative proposal failed. "The legislation wasn't approved, so there was no reason for more money," VanderGiesen stated in his closing argument.
Defense Strategy and Martínez's Stance
Martínez’s attorneys, Ben Kuehne and Kendall Coffey, argued that the payments were mere gestures of personal gratitude, not a quid pro quo. They claimed their client never formally pushed for the ordinance, merely drafting a proposal that could be dismissed by the Commission. They also argued there was no evidence of financial necessity that would drive him to corruption.
Martínez, who is Cuban-born and a former Miami-Dade Police lieutenant, maintained his innocence to the end. "I couldn't look at myself in the mirror, or at my children, my friends, my supporters, and say, 'Yes, I'm guilty of this,' when I didn't do it," he declared after learning of his sentence. His defense plans to base the appeal on questioning the admissibility of some evidence used in the trial, though they have not specified which pieces will be contested.
Timeline of the Case
August 2022: Martínez is arrested and suspended from his position by order of Governor Ron DeSantis. November 2024: A jury finds him guilty of illicit compensation and conspiracy. August 2025: The prosecution requests a 34.5-month prison sentence, the minimum according to guidelines. September 15, 2025: The judge imposes the sentence and grants bail pending appeal.
The Rise and Fall of a Political Career
Martínez was first elected as a Miami-Dade commissioner in 2000, serving five terms, including two as Commission president. He unsuccessfully ran for mayor in 2012 and for Congress in 2014. In 2020, he was re-elected as commissioner, but his career was tarnished in 2022 by the arrest that led to this legal ordeal.
State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle praised the verdict: "Twelve citizens of Miami-Dade heard all the evidence and decided that the use of public office for personal gain will not be tolerated in this community." Meanwhile, the ex-commissioner faces an uncertain future. If the appeal fails, he will serve a sentence in prison, which, although less than the potential 20 years he initially faced, marks a harsh conclusion for a once influential political figure in South Florida.
Frequently Asked Questions About Joe Martínez's Sentencing
Why was Joe Martínez sentenced to prison?
Joe Martínez was sentenced for illicit compensation and conspiracy after being found guilty of accepting bribes to promote an ordinance for local business interests.
What was the outcome of the proposed ordinance?
The ordinance was never approved or voted on, which was a key point in the prosecution's argument that the bribes were tied directly to legislative actions.