Lee v. State, 257 So. 3d 1132

Ronald Jerome Lee was originally sentenced to 40 years for attempted second-degree murder with a firearm plus a 20-year mandatory minimum for discharge of a firearm; the trial court ordered that 20-year mandatory minimum to run consecutively to other mandatory minimums.
Lee moved under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the 40-year term was illegal because attempted second-degree murder with a firearm is punishable by a maximum of 30 years.
The trial court granted the motion and resentenced Lee to 30 years with a 20-year mandatory minimum, again ordering that mandatory minimum to run consecutively to the other mandatory minimums.
Lee and his counsel were not present at the resentencing; the State conceded the court erred in proceeding in absentia without counsel.
Subsequent Florida authority clarified that trial courts have discretion to order the 20-year mandatory minimum to run concurrently rather than consecutively to other mandatory minimums.
The court concluded Lee was entitled to be present and represented at any resentencing where the court had discretion to set the corrected sentence, and remanded for a new resentencing proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the original 40-year sentence was illegal and required correction	Lee: 40 years exceeded the 30-year statutory max for the reclassified offense	State: conceded sentence correction was proper	Court: Motion to correct illegal sentence should have been granted; corrected sentence required
Whether Lee had a right to be present and represented at resentencing after grant of a 3.800(a) motion	Lee: resentencing is a critical stage; he must be present and have counsel when court exercises discretion	State: acknowledged error and conceded Lee had such rights	Court: Defendant has right to be present and have counsel at resentencing when judge has discretion; resentencing in absentia was error requiring remand
Whether the trial court could lawfully order the 20-year mandatory minimum to run consecutively	State/trial court: followed earlier precedent and ordered consecutive terms	Lee: with clarified law, court could (and should) consider concurrent mandatory minimums; he was denied chance to argue for concurrency	Court: Trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive mandatory minimums; because that is discretionary, Lee must be present and represented to contest consecutive imposition

Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014) (resentencing where judge has discretion is not ministerial; defendant must be present and represented)
Mullins v. State, 997 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (new sentencing is a critical stage requiring presence and counsel)
Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016) (clarified sentencing discretion regarding how mandatory minimums are ordered)
Charlemagne v. State, 223 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (discussing discretion to impose concurrent vs consecutive mandatory minimums)
Martinez-Castaneda v. State, 225 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (same)
Mason v. State, 210 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (noting defendant may present evidence/argument for concurrent mandatory minimums)