Jose Martinez v. State of Florida, 211 So. 3d 989

In 2000 Martinez was charged by information with robbery with a firearm, alleging he “carried” a firearm during the offense under § 812.13(2)(a) (1999).
A jury convicted Martinez and, via special interrogatory, found he “actually possessed” a firearm; the trial court imposed a 10-year mandatory minimum under the 10-20-Life statute § 775.087(2)(a)1. (1999).
Martinez’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2001 by the Fourth District.
In 2014 Martinez filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing the information’s allegation that he “carried” a firearm failed to give notice of exposure to the enhanced mandatory minimum for actual possession.
The circuit court denied the motion; the Fourth District affirmed, holding the alleged defect did not produce an illegal sentence subject to correction under rule 3.800(a).
The Florida Supreme Court granted review and approved the Fourth District’s decision, holding Martinez’s challenge was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing enhancement based on an information that alleges the defendant “carried” (but not that he “actually possessed”) a firearm produces an "illegal sentence" correctable under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a).	Martinez: The information did not give constitutionally adequate notice of exposure to the 10-year mandatory minimum for actual possession, so the sentence is illegal and correctable at any time.	State: The alleged defect is a procedural/notice error, not an illegal sentence; Martinez waived sufficiency challenges by not raising them earlier, and 3.800(a) is limited to facially illegal sentences.	The Court held the defect did not render the sentence "illegal" under rule 3.800(a); procedural notice errors where the defendant actually qualifies for enhancement are not cognizable on 3.800(a) review.

Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005) (defines "illegal sentence" as one no judge could lawfully impose)
Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001) (rule 3.800(a) empowers trial courts to correct illegal sentences without time limit)
Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014) (sentence that patently violates statutory or constitutional limits is illegal)
Mancino v. State, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998) (examples of illegal sentences include those exceeding statutory maximums or denying mandatory credits)
Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1998) (unconstitutional enhancement violating double jeopardy is correctable under 3.800(a))
Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008) (standard of review for 3.800(a) is de novo)
Bover v. State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001) (3.800(a) proper where record shows predicate offenses do not exist as a matter of law)
Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1992) (procedural defects in notification of enhancement are not proper subjects for 3.800(a))
Ives v. State, 993 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (procedural deficiency where defendant qualifies for enhancement does not create an illegal sentence)