Case Name: Mark Rochelle BOLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-11-08
Citations: 943 So. 2d 855
Docket Number: No. 1D05-3509
Parties: Mark Rochelle BOLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THOMAS, J., Concurs; WEBSTER, J., Concurring with Written Opinion; ERVIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting with Written Opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 943
Pages: 855–859

Head Matter:
Mark Rochelle BOLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D05-3509.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 8, 2006.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 2006.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Phil Patterson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Mark Bolen, appeals the trial court's denial of his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct alleged sentencing errors on two grounds. We affirm the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion on both grounds, but write only to address the first issue raised by Appellant.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a Prison Re-leasee Reoffender (PRR) because the State relied solely on hearsay evidence to prove his prison release date. The sole evidence used to establish Appellant's release date was a letter written by the records management analyst with the Department of Corrections (DOC); however, because Appellant specifically represented at sentencing that he had no objection to the State's offer of proof of his qualification for sentencing as a PRR, he cannot now assert the opposite position by a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
The record clearly shows that defense counsel affirmatively represented to the court that there was no objection to the State's representation of Appellant's last release date from the DOC; therefore, neither the State nor the trial court was alerted of any potential deficiency at a time when the deficiency could easily have been rectified by calling a live witness to authenticate the DOC document. This distinguishes the case here from Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), where the trial court admitted an identical document over defense counsel's objection.
Appellant cannot affirmatively agree to the sufficiency of the State's proof of his PRR qualifications at sentencing and then later invoke rule 3.800(b)(2) to take the opposite position. See Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 962 (Fla.1996) ("[A] party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal.").
We hold that Appellant's failure to contemporaneously object constitutes a waiver of his right to contest the validity of the trial court's PRR determination.
AFFIRMED.
THOMAS, J., Concurs; WEBSTER, J., Concurring with Written Opinion; ERVIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting with Written Opinion.