PALMER v. STATE (2026)

In this appeal from a partial denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion, Martell Lavon Palmer appeals the legality of the trial court's entry of mandatory minimum sentences in the written order that were not orally pronounced at his sentencing hearing. Although the mandatory minimum sentences do not increase his sentence and his presence for such a sentencing would thus be “useless, or the benefit but a shadow,”¹ precedence from this Court requires reversal. See Solomon v. State, 254 So. 3d 1121, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), disapproved of on other grounds by Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2021) (ordering the defendant be brought before the trial court to impose the mandatory minimum sentences even though the correction would not change the term of his sentences, because “a defendant's due process rights are violated when mandatory minimum terms are added to a sentence without the defendant's presence”).

Reversed and Remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106–07, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934).

Per Curiam.

Makar, Boatwright, and Kilbane, JJ., concur.2