Case Name: Roderick L. STACEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-08-18
Citations: 660 So. 2d 1083
Docket Number: No. 94-2181
Parties: Roderick L. STACEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J„ concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 660
Pages: 1083–1086

Head Matter:
Roderick L. STACEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-2181.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug. 18, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1995.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Asst. Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Barbara Arlene Fink, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
GRIFFIN, Judge.
The defendant, Roderick L. Stacey ["Stacey"], entered into a written negotiated plea of guilty in Case No. 94r-3924 to one count of robbery with a firearm or destructive device in exchange for the state's agreement to not pros a second count of the same crime and not to seek habitual offender treatment. In the second ease (94-3933), he was charged with two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He entered a similarly structured plea in that case, i.e. pleading guilty to one count of robbery with a deadly weapon with a nol pros of the second. The charges in 94-3924 carried a minimum mandatory sentence, the charges in 94-3933 did not. At the sentencing, the court erroneously announced its judgment of guilt of "robbery with a deadly weapon" in both cases. Four days later, the court called the defendant back to correct its error. At that time, it was discussed that the charge to which Stacey had pled guilty in 94-3924 did carry a minimum mandatory; hence, in addition to correctly adjudicating the defendant guilty of the crime with which he was charged and to which he plead guilty (robbery with a firearm or destructive device), the minimum mandatory was imposed. The record is clear that the defense recognized Stacey had pled to a crime that carried a minimum mandatory. In fact, defense counsel alluded to the prosecution's "potential" to stack the minimum mandatories in the absence of the plea agreement.
On appeal, Stacey urges that the plea colloquy was insufficient to establish that he was carrying a firearm or destructive device. Stacey seeks to have the firearm minimum mandatory stricken by us or, at least, to have the matter remanded to the lower court to establish whether he was carrying a firearm or destructive device. He relies on Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256 (Fla.1992) and Anfield v. State, 615 So.2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Koenig, however, involves the withdrawal of a plea based on an inadequate plea colloquy. Stacey has not sought to withdraw his plea. The sole purpose for the procedural requirement that the court must ascertain that there is a factual basis for the plea is to avoid mistake and is subject to the requirement that the defendant must show he has, in fact, been prejudiced by any defect. Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267, 271-274 (Fla.1975). Here the defendant has made no such showing. Moreover, it was an express condition of Stacey's plea agreement that he gave up the right to have the prosecutor recite the facts showing his guilt.
Having entered into and stuck with an advantageous, bargained-for plea agreement to the crime of robbery with a firearm, which, as noted on the face of the information, carries a minimum mandatory sentence, the appellant's minimum mandatory sentence stands. The state has no obligation to prove the gun he wielded was powered by explosives rather than air.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, J" concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.