HARRIS v. STATE (2022)

Appellant Mark Harris challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion to correct sentencing error, which alleged that he could not receive two consecutive thirty-year sentences for attempted manslaughter with a firearm, both of which were enhanced under the habitual felony offender (HFO) statute. We hold that the lower court should have granted relief and that the sentencing error was not invited. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing.

The record reflects that Appellant committed both of his criminal offenses as part of the same criminal episode. Because of this, the trial court could not increase Appellant's sentence by designating him as an HFO and then further increase the sentence by running the two HFO-enhanced terms consecutively. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 525 (Fla. 1993).

We reject the state's argument that Appellant invited the error by the trial court to impose an illegal sentence under Hale. As the state correctly concedes, if we reject this argument, the trial court could only impose a maximum sentence of thirty years for count one, with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory term, based on the HFO designation, and a consecutive term of fifteen years in state prison for count two, for Appellant's designation as a Prison Releasee Reoffender, for a total sentence of forty-five years in state prison.

On remand, the trial court shall impose the sentence as described above, as it is clear from the record that the trial court intended to impose the maximum sentence allowed by law for the two crimes. Appellant need not be present for resentencing.

Reversed and Remanded.

B.L. Thomas, J.

Tanenbaum and Long, JJ., concur.