Bell v. StateBell v. State
Aрpellant, Michael Bell, appeals the denial of his motion to correсt illegal sentence, filed pursuant to
Bell pled guilty to kidnapping without a firearm in counts one and two, rоbbery without a firearm in count three, and robbery with a firearm in count four. The plea agreement and the transcript of the sentencing hearing indicate that Bell was to rеceive four concurrent 20-year sentences on each count, with a mandаtory three-year sentence under
Bell filed a motion to correct sentence, alleging that the minimum mandatory sentence imposed as to count four for the offense of armed robbery was invalid because there was no showing, as required by law, that he was in actual pоssession of a firearm during the commission of the robbery, and that the sentence in count three for robbery without a firearm was in excess of the penalty authorized by law. The
Constructive or vicarious possession of a firearm, although sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with a firearm, is insufficient to constitute possession under
The trial court was therefore required at the plea hearing to determine whether thеre was a factual basis for the minimum-mandatory sentence. Williams v. State, 534 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1988). The requirement that a trial court ascertain the factual basis for a guilty plea is intended to preclude an unwitting admission of guilt for a crime the defendant did not in fact commit. Shannon v. State, 406 So.2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). As previously stated, thе court did not make any inquiry whatsoever regarding a factual basis for Bell‘s plea. We therefore cannot conclusively determine from Bell‘s pro se brief whether Bеll is now alleging that he did not carry a firearm during the robbery. We therefore remand for аn evidentiary hearing to permit the trial court to determine whether Bell was prejudiced by the trial court‘s failure to ascertain whether there was a factual basis fоr the minimum mandatory sentence. State v. Kendrick, 336 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1976); Williams v. State, 534 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). If he was so prejudiced, such would be grounds for vacating the sentence.
In count three, Bell was adjudicated guilty of committing robbery without a firearm, and in count four of robbery with a firearm. The judgment states that each is a violation of
We therefore REVERSE the order denying Bell‘s motion to сorrect sentence, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion on the minimum mandatory sentence in count four. We VACATE the 20-year sentence imposed as to count three and also REMAND for further consistent proceedings.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.