Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
A sentencing court must apply firearm enhancements to the count supported by the charging document and jury findings. When a judge mistakenly attaches a mandatory minimum to the wrong count, correcting only the favorable part of the error may leave another illegal sentence in place. This issue was addressed in a recent Florida decision involving transposed sentences for aggravated battery and the 10-20-Life statute. If you are facing enhanced penalties, you should consult a Tampa violent crime defense attorney about preserving objections and correcting an unlawful sentence.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the State charged the defendant with attempted second-degree murder in one count and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in another. For the attempted murder count, the charging document asserted that the defendant carried and discharged a firearm and caused great bodily harm. The State sought a 25-year mandatory minimum under Florida’s 10-20-Life statute only on that count.
Reportedly, the jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated battery as a lesser offense on the firearm-enhanced count. Its verdict included special findings that the defendant possessed and personally discharged a firearm and caused great bodily harm. On the separate aggravated battery count, the jury returned a general guilty verdict without the special findings needed for the enhancement.
It is reported that the parties agreed at sentencing that the firearm-enhanced count required at least 25 years. During the oral pronouncement, however, the trial court stated that this count carried no minimum and imposed nine years. It then attached the 25-year minimum to the other count. The written judgment matched that transposition. The defendant challenged only the 25-year term and appealed after a motion to correct the error was deemed denied.
Challenging Incorrect Sentences
On appeal, the court agreed that the 25-year minimum could not legally remain on the count that lacked supporting allegations and jury findings. Ordinarily, a reviewing court will not speculate about an unambiguous oral sentence. Here, however, the complete record made the sentencing court’s intent unmistakable. The information, verdict form, sentencing memorandum, and arguments from both parties all placed the firearm enhancement on the other count.
The court also emphasized the contemporaneous objection rule. Defense counsel did not alert the trial judge to the verbal mistake when the court could have corrected it immediately. The defendant’s proposed remedy would remove the unlawful minimum from one count while preserving a nine-year sentence on a count for which the statute required at least 25 years. The appellate court declined to permit that incomplete correction.
Because the jury found firearm discharge and resulting great bodily harm on the properly enhanced count, the statute left the trial court no discretion to impose less than 25 years there. A defendant has no legitimate expectation that an illegal sentence omitting a nondiscretionary minimum will remain final. Moving the sentences to the correct counts produced no net increase and did not violate double jeopardy. The court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed the sentences on the affected counts, and remanded for correction at a hearing where the defendant must be present with counsel.
Review Your Charges with a Skilled Tampa Violent Crime Defense Attorney
Firearm findings and mandatory minimums can dramatically affect the sentence for a violent offense. If you are charged with a violent offense, the skilled Tampa violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can review your charges and help you seek the best outcome possible under the facts of your case. Call 813-228-7095 or complete the firm’s online contact form to arrange a confidential meeting.