Regino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Regino v. State

921 So. 2d 845, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3007, 2006 WL 508330

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-3688

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 921 So. 2d 845 (Regino v. State) 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

Regino v. State, 921 So. 2d 845, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3007, 2006 WL 508330 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

David Regino appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his first claim, Mr. Regino argues that the trial court illegally sentenced him as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) and added a firearm enhancement for the same offense. This claim is without merit, and we affirm the postconviction court’s denial. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 658 (Fla.2000).

Mr. Regino’s second claim, however, has merit. Mr. Regino pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony charge of aggravated assault. The signed plea form reflected a ten-year state prison term, with a five-year minimum mandatory as a PRR. The form also reflected a ten-year HVFO sentence, with no mention of a minimum prison term. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a sentence consistent with the plea agreement. The trial court specifically asked whether a minimum mandatory applied to the HVFO sentence and was assured it did not. As a consequence, the trial court orally imposed no HVFO minimum sentence. The written sentence, however, provided an HVFO minimum prison term of ten years.

We are compelled to reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of Mr. Regino’s second claim because the trial court did not orally pronounce a minimum mandatory term for Mr. Regino’s HVFO sentence. See Winchell v. State, 740 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). On remand, the trial court should enter a written sentence that conforms with the original oral pronouncement. See id.

[846]*846Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

David Regino appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his first claim, Mr. Regino argues that the trial court illegally sentenced him as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) and added a firearm enhancement for the same offense. This claim is without merit, and we affirm the postconviction court’s denial. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 658 (Fla.2000).

Mr. Regino’s second claim, however, has merit. Mr. Regino pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony charge of aggravated assault. The signed plea form reflected a ten-year state prison term, with a five-year minimum mandatory as a PRR. The form also reflected a ten-year HVFO sentence, with no mention of a minimum prison term. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a sentence consistent with the plea agreement. The trial court specifically asked whether a minimum mandatory applied to the HVFO sentence and was assured it did not. As a consequence, the trial court orally imposed no HVFO minimum sentence. The written sentence, however, provided an HVFO minimum prison term of ten years.

We are compelled to reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of Mr. Regino’s second claim because the trial court did not orally pronounce a minimum mandatory term for Mr. Regino’s HVFO sentence. See Winchell v. State, 740 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). On remand, the trial court should enter a written sentence that conforms with the original oral pronouncement. See id.

[846]*846Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 So. 2d 845, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3007, 2006 WL 508330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regino-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack