CAMERON DIXON, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the following order denying postconviction relief:

THIS CAUSE comes upon Defendant’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence filed on August 26th, 2011. This Court, having reviewed the motion, court files and records in this case, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises therein, hereby orders that the motion is DENIED for the following reasons.

On December 20th, 2010, the defendant entered into a guilty plea on case number F08-17372 to one count of attempted felony murder with a deadly weapon or firearm or aggravated battery, a life felony; and one count of armed robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm, a first degree felony punishable by life. The defendant was sentenced to a term of ten (10) years imprisonment with a ten (10) year mandatory minimum on each count, to run *352concurrently.1 In the instant motion, the defendant claims that the ten (10) year mandatory minimum imposed in accordance with § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat.2 was improper because the record fails to reflect that the defendant stipulated to having actual possession of a firearm, resulting in a violation of the rule set forth in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

The Blakely line of cases stand for the proposition that “when a defendant pleads guilty the State is free to seek judicial sentence enhancements so long as the defendant either stipulates to the relevant facts or consents to judicial factfinding.” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 310, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). It is apparent on the face of the record that the defendant’s counsel stipulated that the information filed by the prosecution, as well as the arrest form, established a prima facie case for purposes of the plea. See attached copy of plea colloquy transcript at 37, lines 11-19. Accordingly, this court finds that such a stipulation supports the imposition of the ten (10) year mandatory minimum sentence required for a sentence enhancement under § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat., just as my predecessor did in determining a factual basis for the plea. See attached copy of plea colloquy transcript at 38, lines 1^4.

The court’s finding in the instant case is supported by the reasoning set forth in Bradley v. State, 971 So.2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)3 and Sanchez v. State, 979 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In Bradley, the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that a stipulation to the facts alleged in the complaint affidavit4 when entering a plea was sufficient to support the imposition of a twenty-year minimum mandatory required for the discharge of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Bradley, 971 So.2d at 961. Like-wise, both the arrest form and the information in the case at bar, which are attached hereto, state that the defendant actually discharged a firearm during the commission of the crimes charged. In Sanchez, the Third District held that the defendant’s stipulation to both the factual basis of the plea and to the imposition of a specific sentence rendered an alleged Apprendi violation un-meritorious. The defendant’s stipula*353tion in the instant case has rendered the same.

Based on the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED.

We entirely agree.

Affirmed.