MIGUEL FLORES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The factual basis for the plea in this case did not establish actual possession of the firearm which is necessary for the three-year mandatory minimum to apply. Dawkins v. State, 923 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); § 775.087(2)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (2001). The face of the record shows that appellant was in constructive, not actual, *438possession of the firearm. We reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the mandatory minimum term from the sentence imposed on the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count. Resen-tencing is not required, and appellant need not be present for this ministerial sentence correction.
Reverse and remand with directions to strike the three-year firearm mandatory minimum.
WARNER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosario v. State, 260 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Irvine Hicks v. State, 227 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…is whether resentencing is required. We recognize that remanding for a trial court to strike the mandatory minimum portion of a sentence is often a “ministerial sentence correction” for which resentencing is not required. See, e.g., Flores v. State, 58 So. 3d 437, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Nonetheless, a reversal of a mandatory minimum sentence will sometimes require the appellate court to remand for resentencing under the Criminal Punishment Code. See, e.g., [*137] Bundrage v. State, 814 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (F…
-
Porter v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Artavis Dawkins v. State, 923 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)