## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 17 - 1141

_____________________________ T ONY E. S MITH , Appellant, v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County . Marianne L. Aho , Judge . April 25, 2018 P ER C URIAM . This is an appeal from an order on a motio n for clarification of sentence, which we have treated as an appeal from a summary ruling on a postconviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b )(2). We reverse and remand for correction of Appellant’s judgments and sentences insofar as they contain conflicting s entencing provisions , which are also inconsistent with Appellant’s plea agreement. Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to armed robbery with a firearm in six cases : case numbers 2014 - CF - 2685, 2014 - CF 2746, 2014 - CF - 2747, 2014 - CF - 2748, 2014 - CF - 2749, and 2014 - CF 2750 . The plea agreement c learly provide d that the ten - year mandatory minimum sentences in all of A ppellant ’ s cases would2 run concurrently except for the sentence in case number 2014 - CF 2685, which would run consecutively to the sentence in ca se number 2014 - CF - 2746. Thus, A p pellant would serve concurrent sentences in case numbers 2014 - CF - 2746, 2014 - CF - 2747, 2014 - CF - 2748, 2014 - CF - 2749, and 2014 - CF - 2750, after which he would then serve the sentence in case number 2014 - CF - 2685. However, the judgments and sentences erroneo usly reflec t that A ppellant is to serve the sentence in case number 2014 - CF 2685 concurrently with

— instead of consecutively to

— the sentences in ca se numbers 2014 - CF - 2747, 2014 - CF - 2748, 2014 - CF - 2749, and 2014 - CF - 2750. Further, t he judgments and sentences reflect that although the sentence in case number 2014 - CF - 2685 is to run consecutively to the sente nce in case number 2014 - CF - 2746 , the sentences in both of these cases are to run concurrently with the senten ces in case numbers 2014 - CF - 2747, 2014 - CF - 2748, 2014 - CF - 2749 , and 2014 - CF - 2750. It is axiomatic that two consecutive prison sentences cannot both run concurrently with a third prison sentence where all three sentences are of equal length. The judgments and sentences must be corrected to consistently refle ct the sen tence structure outlined by the negotiated plea agreement. Thus, we reverse and remand with directions that that trial court correct the judgment and sentence in case number 2014 - CF - 2685 by removing all reference to the sentence running concurrently with the sentences in case numbers 2014 - CF - 2747, 2014 - CF - 2748, 2014 - CF - 2 749, and 2014 - CF - 2750. Moreover , we direct the trial court to correct the judgments and sentences in case numbers 2014 - CF - 2747, 2014 - CF - 2748, 2014 - CF - 2749, and 2014 - CF - 2750 by removing all reference to the sentences therein running concurrently with the sentence in case number 201 4 - CF - 2685. To the extent A ppellant claims that double jeopardy principles require that all of his sentences run concurr ently, A ppellant has no legitimate expectation of finality in a sen tence structure that is inconsistent with his negotiated plea agreement . See Annatone v. State , 198 So. 3d 1031, 1033 - 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Dunbar v. State , 89 So. 3d 9 01 (Fla. 2012)); see also Martinez v. State , 216 So. 3d 734, 739 - 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (en banc).3 R EVERSED and R EMANDED with directions. L EWIS , R OBERTS , and J AY , JJ., concur .

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________ Tony E. Smith, pro se , Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.