JEROME PERSON

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. MORRIS, Chief Judge. Jerome Person appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm without comment the denial of his first claim that his twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence

in case 03CF-000338 and his twenty-year minimum mandatory sentence in case 03CF-000039 are illegal because they conflict. However, we reverse and remand for consideration of his second claim, which was not addressed by the postconviction court. In his second claim, Person argued that he filed a motion in February 2020 requesting a "complete presentment of sentence and sentences" that was granted and showed a "scrivener's error." He further claimed that a "stipulation" in case 03CF-000338 has been "blacked out," that he received two different sentences on the one charge of armed robbery in 03CF-000338, and that his twenty-year minimum mandatory was "blocked out," rendering his sentences illegal because it is illegal to sentence a person to two different sentences on one charge. In denying Person's motion, the postconviction court recited Person's sentences as follows: In case number 03CF-000039, Defendant was adjudicated guilty of Attempted Murder of the Second Degree and sentenced to 32 years prison with a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence to run concurrent with any active sentence being served. (See attachments) In case number 03CF-000338, Defendant was adjudicated guilty of Armed Robbery (firearm) and sentenced to 32 years prison with a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence to run concurrent with case numbers 03CF-000339. (See attachments) In case number 03CF-000339, Defendant was found guilty of Attempted Robbery (no firearm or weapon) and sentenced to 5 years prison. No mandatory minimum sentence was involved. (See attachments) The record attached to the postconviction court's order supports the court's recitation of Person's sentences with the exception of the written judgment and sentence in case 03CF-000338. The court attached a written sentence in case 03CF-000338 that indicates on page six that Person received a twenty-year minimum mandatory sentence, not the twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence referred to by the postconviction court. And the written sentence attached by the court does not match the written sentence for case 03CF-000338 attached to Person's rule 3.800(a) motion, which indicates on page seven that he received a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory term. It appears that the different written sentence in case 03CF-000338 attached to the postconviction court's order was the result of a motion filed by Person in early 2020. The progress docket for 03CF-000338, included in our record, contains an entry for January 27, 2020, indicating that Person filed a motion "requesting a complete and full presentation of sent [sic] and sent [sic] imposed

by the court." It also contains an entry for February 4, 2020, indicating that an order was entered on the motion, and an entry for February 11, 2020, indicating "state prison commitment issued being re-recorded to correct pg. 7 of 8 as per order dated 2/02/2020." The written sentence in case 03CF-000338 attached to the postconviction court's order also contains a handwritten notation on page one stating: "To correct pg. 7 of 8 per order dated February 2, 2020." In addition, page 8 of that written sentence lists case number "CF03-0039XX," rather than 03CF-000338, and a twenty-year minimum mandatory sentence. These confusing discrepancies in the written sentences serve to explain Person's second argument in his rule 3.800(a) motion. He argued that he received two different sentences and it appears that this is what he was referring to, but the postconviction court did not address this part of Person's rule 3.800(a) motion. In addition, the postconviction court's attachments support his claim. For this reason, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to address this part of Person's motion challenging these sentences. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) ("On appeal from the denial of relief [of a rule 3.800(a) motion], unless the record shows

conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief."); Solis v. State, 38 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding for reconsideration because items attached to court's summary denial of rule 3.800(a) motion did not conclusively refute defendant's claim). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.