FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1141

_____________________________

TONY E. SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

April 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order on a motion 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 sentencing 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-CF2746, 2014-CF-2747, 2014-CF-2748, 2014-CF-2749, and 2014-CF2750. The plea agreement clearly provided that the ten-year 

mandatory minimum sentences in all of Appellant’s cases would 
2

run concurrently except for the sentence in case number 2014-CF2685, which would run consecutively to the sentence in case 

number 2014-CF-2746. Thus, Appellant 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 erroneously reflect 

that Appellant is to serve the sentence in case number 2014-CF2685 concurrently with—instead of consecutively to—the 

sentences in case numbers 2014-CF-2747, 2014-CF-2748, 2014-

CF-2749, and 2014-CF-2750. Further, the judgments and 

sentences reflect that although the sentence in case number 2014-

CF-2685 is to run consecutively to the sentence in case number 

2014-CF-2746, the sentences in both of these cases are to run 

concurrently with the sentences 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 reflect the sentence 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-2749, 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 2014-CF-2685. To the extent Appellant claims that double 

jeopardy principles require that all of his sentences run 

concurrently, Appellant has no legitimate expectation of finality in 

a sentence 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 901 (Fla. 2012)); 

see also Martinez v. State, 216 So. 3d 734, 739-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2017) (en banc).
3

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. 

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and JAY, 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.