Case Name: Daniel R. GRAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-02-13
Citations: 717 So. 2d 547
Docket Number: No. 96-3312
Parties: Daniel R. GRAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 717
Pages: 547–549

Head Matter:
Daniel R. GRAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-3312.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 13, 1998.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1998.
Richard I. Wallsh, Chartered Law Offices of Troum & Wallsh, Winter Park, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Daniel R. Grage ["Grage"] appeals a final order which granted in part and denied part his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate and set aside a sentence. We affirm.
On June 11, 1992, Grage entered a plea of nolo contendere in lower court case number 91-5896: battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence. In the written plea agreement Grage agreed to be sentenced in this case as a habitual felony offender to fifteen years imprisonment, but that the sentence would be suspended and he would be placed on fourteen months of community control followed by fifteen years probation. The sentence was imposed as agreed and Grage did not appeal.
On January 26, 1994, Grage pled guilty to violating probation in two cases, numbered 91-5896 and 88-5573. The trial court revoked Grage's probation in case number 91-5896 and pronounced a sentence of 464 days in the Orange County Jail with credit for 464 days served. In case 88-5573, the trial court pronounced a habitual felony offender sentence of ten years in the Department of Corrections with a credit for time served, followed by five years probation. The judgments conformed to the pronouncements. Neither the state nor the defense objected to the sentences.
The state soon realized that the lower court had transposed Grage's sentences: the sentence in case number 91-5896 should have been imposed in case number 88-5573, and vice versa. The state filed a motion to correct sentence and on March 3,1994, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion. Grage's counsel consented to correction of the court's error. Accordingly, the trial court amended the sentence in case number 91-5896 to reflect Grage's habitual felony offender status and a sentence of ten years in the Department of Corrections with credit for time served days, followed by five years probation. Case 88-5573 was amended to reflect a sentence of 464 days time served. The sentences were made nunc pro tunc to January 26, 1994. Grage did not appeal. Several months later, on October 3, 1994, through private counsel, Grage filed an "Amended Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence" in which he asserted that the March 3, 1994 sentence correction violated double jeopardy. The lower court denied the motion and Grage appealed. The appeal was dismissed, however, for failure to timely prosecute. Thereafter, in December 1995, he filed a multifaceted Rule 3.850 motion, claim IV of which was the previously decided claim that the March 3, 1994 sentence correction violated double jeopardy. Manifestly, claim IV is procedurally barred. Even if it were not, however, this was the correction of a technical error that resulted in no net increase in the sentence to the appellant. The sentence received was consistent with Grage's plea agreement. The correction was expressly agreed to by counsel for appellant in appellant's presence, and the court and the state acted in reliance on that agreement in changing the sentence in both this ease and the companion case.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
THOMPSON, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
. The lower court subsequently amended this sentence to conform to the ten year maximum.