DAVID REGINO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by imposing a written minimum mandatory term for the HVFO sentence that was not orally pronounced.
The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and the plea form reflected a ten-year sentence with a five-year minimum mandatory as a PRR and a t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Firearm Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
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. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State, 250 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…es, as he did below, that his written judgment and sentence is illegal because it also contains a ten-year minimum mandatory provision regarding his HVFO sentence that was not orally pronounced by the trial judge at sentencing. See Regino v. State , 921 So. 2d 845, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing postconviction court's denial of defendant's rule 3.800(a) motion because the trial court did not orally pronounce a minimum mandatory term for the HVFO sentence). Turner unsuccessfully raised this same claim in a…
-
Turner v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 740 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Winchell v. State, 740 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)