Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901

Dunbar was convicted in 2009 of robbery with a firearm, two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, and grand theft, with jurors finding he actually possessed the firearm in the robberies and assaults.
The trial court orally pronounced a life sentence for robbery with a firearm but did not include the ten-year mandatory minimum under 775.087(2).
Later that day, without the parties present, the court issued a written sentencing order adding the mandatory minimum.
On direct appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the written sentence, concluding the nondiscretionary minimum could be added to the originally imposed sentence despite the oral pronouncement.
The Fifth District relied on Allen v. State and distinguished Gardner v. State, which held double jeopardy barred similar correction when the non-discretionary term was not pronounced orally.
Dunbar challenged both the double jeopardy analysis and the subsequent due process issue arising from increasing the sentence without his presence; the Florida Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy whether adding the mandatory minimum violated	Dunbar argues the later addition violated double jeopardy by increasing punishment for the same offense.	Dunbar contends Gardner prohibits such post-initial-sentence increases due to finality concerns.	No double jeopardy violation; correction allowed as initial sentence was illegal.
Due process right to be present at sentence increase	Dunbar had a due process right to be present when the sentence was increased.	Court should not require presence for a mandatory correction of an illegal sentence.	Due process violation; remand for resentencing with Dunbar present.
Conflict with Gardner and disposition of remand	Gardner dictates that double jeopardy precludes post-oral-corrective imposition.	Fifth District’s approach is correct and Gardner is distinguishable.	Disapprove Gardner; remand for resentencing with Dunbar present; uphold Fifth District analysis on double jeopardy.

Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (Supreme Court 1947) (double jeopardy not violated when correcting illegal sentence)
Harris v. State, 645 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1994) (no finality bar when lawful correction is available)
United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (Supreme Court 1980) (sentencing not a game; correction of error allowed)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (Supreme Court 1969) (principle of finality and retrial remonstrance in sentencing)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (Supreme Court 1987) (defendant’s presence at critical stages contributes to fairness)