Case Name: John Lee PUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-10-28
Citations: 202 So. 3d 462
Docket Number: No. 1D15-1155
Parties: John Lee PUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
John Lee PUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D15-1155.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 28, 2016.
John Lee Pugh, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal. We affirm, without further comment, the trial court's denial of Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims (Claims 1-3) raised pursuant to rule 3.850. With regard to Claim 4, we agree that a sentencing error has occurred. Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery with great bodily harm and with a firearm, among other charges. The aggravated battery charge was reclassified to a first-degree felony, and at sentencing, Appellant received a life sentence with a twenty-five year minimum mandatory term. Appellant challenges this portion of his sentence. The trial court relied upon this Court's opinion in Hatten v. State, 152 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), as authority for the sentencing decision. Subsequently, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the opinion. In Hatten v. State, — So.3d -, 2016 WL 4493557, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S352 (Fla.2016), the supreme court declared that where the 10-20-Life statute is implicated, a sentencing judge may impose a mandatory minimum sentence in excess of the statutory maximum sentence, "even if the selected mandatory minimum exceeds the statutory maximum absent the 10-20-Life statute." Id. at -, at *3. However, "if the trial court chooses to impose a sentence beyond the selected mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to the 10-20-Life statute, additional statutory authority is required." Id. at -, at *4. Here, the trial court did not articulate any additional statutory authority for the life sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's conviction, but reverse and remand for resen-tencing consistent with the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Hatten.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.
MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ" concur.