Martell Lavon Palmer v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martell Lavon Palmer v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2026

Docket5D2023-0854

StatusPublished

This text of Martell Lavon Palmer v. State of Florida (Martell Lavon Palmer v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martell Lavon Palmer v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0854 LT Case No. 2021-CF-010135-A _____________________________

MARTELL LAVON PALMER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Meredith Charbula, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

January 23, 2026

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a partial denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, Martell Lavon Palmer appeals the legality of the trial court’s entry of mandatory minimum sentences in the written order that were not orally pronounced at his sentencing hearing. Although the mandatory minimum sentences do not increase his sentence and his presence for such a sentencing would thus be “useless, or the benefit but a shadow,”1 precedence from this Court requires reversal. See Solomon v. State, 254 So. 3d 1121, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), disapproved of on other grounds by Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2021) (ordering the defendant be brought before the trial court to impose the mandatory minimum sentences even though the correction would not change the term of his sentences, because “a defendant’s due process rights are violated when mandatory minimum terms are added to a sentence without the defendant’s presence”).

REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

MAKAR, BOATWRIGHT, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

1 Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106–07 (1934).

2 This case was reassigned after Judge Pratt, who was previously on the panel, was commissioned as a United States District Judge.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0854 LT Case No. 2021-CF-010135-A _____________________________

MARTELL LAVON PALMER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Meredith Charbula, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

January 23, 2026

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a partial denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, Martell Lavon Palmer appeals the legality of the trial court’s entry of mandatory minimum sentences in the written order that were not orally pronounced at his sentencing hearing. Although the mandatory minimum sentences do not increase his sentence and his presence for such a sentencing would thus be “useless, or the benefit but a shadow,”1 precedence from this Court requires reversal. See Solomon v. State, 254 So. 3d 1121, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), disapproved of on other grounds by Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2021) (ordering the defendant be brought before the trial court to impose the mandatory minimum sentences even though the correction would not change the term of his sentences, because “a defendant’s due process rights are violated when mandatory minimum terms are added to a sentence without the defendant’s presence”).

REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

MAKAR, BOATWRIGHT, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

1 Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106–07 (1934).

2 This case was reassigned after Judge Pratt, who was previously on the panel, was commissioned as a United States District Judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martell Lavon Palmer v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martell-lavon-palmer-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack