LINDSEY v. STATE (2021)

Appellant, Maurice Lindsey, challenges an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. As he was properly credited for the ten-year minimum mandatory he served upon his original conviction, we find no merit in the claim that the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation violated his constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy. See § 921.0017, Fla. Stat. (2021) (providing that when probation is revoked, the sentencing court shall order credit for time served in state prison or county jail, upon recommitment to the Department of Corrections, and “shall direct the Department of Corrections to compute and apply credit” for prior prison credit); § 948.06(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (upon violation of probation, the sentencing judge may “impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer or offender on probation”); § 775.087(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (“Any person who is convicted of a felony ․ and the conviction was for: ․ [r]obbery ․ and during the commission of the offense, such person actually possessed a ‘firearm’ or ‘destructive device’ as those terms are defined in s[ection] 790.001, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of [ten] years.”); see also Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989, 991 (Fla. 2017) (sentencing error that can be corrected under rule 3.800(a) must be apparent from face of original record). Accordingly, we affirm.

MILLER, J.