Case Name: James R. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-03-11
Citations: 633 So. 2d 112
Docket Number: No. 93-03533
Parties: James R. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PATTERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 633
Pages: 112–117

Head Matter:
James R. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 93-03533.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 11, 1994.

Opinion:
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
James R. Brown appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences. We conclude that the trial court was correct in denying Brown's motion which alleged that he should have been treated as a youth- M offender. We, however, agree that the second sentencing issue which Brown has raised requires reversal.
In his motion, Brown seeks deletion of three mandatory minimum sentences required by section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1989). In one court appearance, Brown pleaded no contest to three robberies with a firearm, one robbery with a weapon, two robberies, and one attempted robbery with a weapon. The trial court ordered a presen-tence investigation. In his motion to correct illegal sentences, Brown alleged "[T]he court proceeded to the plea colloquy: Defendant denied having used a firearm in any of the alleged robbery offenses and had a tire iron tucked within his clothing that appeared to be a firearm by victims." Brown further alleged that the plea agreement did not state armed robbery with a firearm and that the trial court, without any credible evidence to support the mandatory minimum sentences, imposed minimum mandatory sentences in three cases.
The trial court denied Brown's motion, concluding that these matters must be brought up on direct appeal and are not subject to collateral attack. In this court's recent decision of Poiteer v. State, 627 So.2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the trial court imposed a minimum mandatory sentence on an armed robbery charge. The defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence alleged that there was no showing or evidence to establish that the defendant was in actual possession of a firearm during the commission of the robbery. The trial court in Poi-teer denied the motion, ruling that the defendant must raise the issue on direct appeal. This court reversed and held that remand to the trial court was necessary because the defendant sufficiently alleged prejudice by the application of section 775.087(2), the appellate record lacked the necessary exhibits for this court to determine if the defendant's claim could be refuted and the trial court did not reach the merits of the motion. Once remanded, it is incumbent upon the trial court to determine whether it properly invoked section 775.087(2). We, therefore, remand this case to the trial court to follow the directions set forth in Poiteer.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, J., concurs.
ALTENBERND, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.