Palmer v. State
The Fifth District reversed the partial denial of Palmer's Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, holding that mandatory minimum sentences included in the written sentencing order but never orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing require resentencing with the defendant present. The court reached this result reluctantly, noting the correction would not change the length of Palmer's sentence, but found itself bound by its prior decision in Solomon v. State.
Key facts
- Palmer filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging his sentence after the trial court entered a written sentencing order that included mandatory minimum sentences not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing.
- The trial court partially denied Palmer's motion, prompting Palmer to appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion confirms that Solomon v. State's presence requirement for imposition of mandatory minimum sentences survives the Florida Supreme Court's partial disapproval in Earl v. State, giving practitioners continued… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.