final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Brantley S.
Clark, Jr., Judge.
Hilliard E. Moldof, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
multiple prison sentences, including one lasting the rest of
his natural life, Samuel Reager argues that a forty-year
minimum mandatory sentence imposed on one count is longer
than the statute allows. This argument is unpreserved, so we
other crimes, the State charged Reager with attempted
first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer while
discharging a firearm and causing great bodily harm, and
robbery while possessing and discharging a firearm. Officer
David Brady of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, working in his patrol boat at a state park,
responded to a report and pulled alongside a sailboat.
Officer Brady asked the two men onboard for identification
and paperwork, and Reager went to the cabin to retrieve the
boat's registration. Officer Brady turned around to grab
a piece of paper and when he turned back, Reager was pointing
a gun at his face. Officer Brady attempted to jump for the
water, but was shot twice. Reager continued shooting while
Officer Brady was in the water and the two exchanged fire
until Reager jumped in the patrol boat and drove at Officer
Brady, narrowly missing him. Reager then drove off, leaving
Officer Brady clinging to the sailboat's anchor line,
shot and with a deflated life jacket, until he was picked up
by the Coast Guard.
was found guilty of attempted first-degree murder while
possessing and discharging a firearm and causing great bodily
harm, and sentenced to life in prison. Reager was also
convicted of armed robbery while possessing and discharging a
firearm, and the trial court imposed a forty-year minimum
mandatory sentence. After Reager appealed his judgment and
sentence, he filed a motion to correct sentencing error,
see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2), arguing that his
life sentence was unconstitutional because, although he was
eighteen at the time of his crimes, his brain had not fully
matured. The trial court properly rejected this
initial brief, Reager argues that his forty-year minimum
mandatory sentence for armed robbery while possessing and
discharging a firearm is greater than that allowed by
statute. See § 775.087(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat.
However, Reager failed to raise this argument at sentencing
or in his Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. See Fla. R. App.
P. 9.140(e) ("A sentencing error may not be raised on
appeal unless the alleged error has first been brought to the
attention of the lower tribunal" during sentencing or by
Rule 3.800(b) motion.). In Hope v. State, 134 So.3d
1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), the defendant asserted that
illegal mandatory minimum sentences were imposed, and we held
that we "cannot consider these claims on the merits
because they were not preserved for appellate review by a
contemporaneous objection or a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion."
Reager asserts that his case is distinguishable from
Hope because his forty-year minimum mandatory
sentence was a scrivener's error that should simply be
corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. In fact, the
supreme court has recognized that claims "that the
written order deviated from the oral pronouncement"
raise sentencing errors subject to Rule 9.140(e). Jackson
v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 572 (Fla. 2008); see also
Daniels v. State, 118 So.3d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
("Claims that the written judgment and sentence do not
conform to the oral pronouncement must be preserved either
with a contemporaneous objection, if possible, or by filing a
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion before
filing the initial brief."). Reager filed a Rule
3.800(b)(2) motion, but failed to include the argument he now
makes, so we may not review it. Reager's remedy, if any,
must be by postconviction claim.
Thomas and Makar, JJ, concur
See Farmer v. State,
268 So.3d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). We reject
Reager's argument on this issue on appeal, as well as his
argument that he was not permitted to ...