Case Name: Johnny D. PELFREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-09-09
Citations: 409 So. 2d 486
Docket Number: No. 80-1092
Parties: Johnny D. PELFREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 409
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
Johnny D. PELFREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 80-1092.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sept. 9, 1981.
As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 10, 1982.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Lynda Campbell, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Johnny D. Pelfrey, pro se.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, Judge.
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement appellant, Pelfrey, pled guilty to two charges of robbery with a firearm and one charge of attempted first degree murder. Pelfrey was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment for each armed robbery and life imprisonment for the attempted first degree murder. Pelfrey argues that the sentence of life imprisonment for attempted first degree murder is illegal. The State agrees but argues that this incorrect sentence is merely the result of a clerical error.
According to the plea agreement Pelfrey was to receive fifteen (15) years for one armed robbery, fifteen (15) years for attempted first degree murder and life imprisonment for the second armed robbery. The trial judge accepted this agreement at the hearing, but the recorded judgment sentenced Pelfrey to fifteen (15) years for each armed robbery and life imprisonment for the attempted first degree murder.
The lower court order is the recorded judgment and not the hearing transcript. Watt v. State, 323 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The Watt court was faced with a similar situation. It concluded that there was no reason to find the. formal order was in error because of a discrepancy between the order and the statements in the transcript. This situation is distinguishable from cases where the trial judge sentences a defendant contrary to the "plea bargain" and the defendant seeks on appeal to withdraw his plea, or to reinstate the bargained for sentence. The error in this case, if any, was in Pelfrey's favor, and we cannot direct that a more severe sentence be imposed on remand. United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354 (1931); United States v. Best, 571 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1974); Pahud v. State, 370 So.2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Brown v. State, 264 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
The fifteen (15) year sentences for the armed robberies are within the statutory limits and are affirmed. The sentence for life imprisonment for attempted first degree murder is illegal because it is excessive. We vacate the latter sentence and remand this cause to the trial court for resentencing. Pelfrey raised several other issues in this appeal, but because he pled guilty they are not appropriate for our review. Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1979). He shall be without prejudice to raise them by way of collateral attack, if appropriate.
AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
. § 782.04(l)(a), 777.04(4)(a), 775.082(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979).