However, Reynoso is subject to an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence in accordance with section 775.087(2), because of the possession of the semi-automatic firearm. See State v. Leatherwood, 561 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (court required to impose mandatory sentence). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Reynoso's motion to correct sentence and remand to the trial court with directions to remove the twenty-five points from the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
Since the appellee in the instant case was convicted of one of the enumerated felonies in the statute and had in his possession a firearm, the trial court was required to sentence him to three years in state prison as the minimum sentence. State v. Leatherwood, 561 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Sesler, 386 So.2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand with directions to impose the three year mandatory term required under section 775.087 (2).
PER CURIAM. As counsel for appellee correctly points out in the "Admission of Error" filed herein, this matter is controlled by State v. Leatherwood, 561 So.2d 459 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the sentence imposing probation upon the appellee herein is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to permit the appellee to withdraw his previously entered plea of "no contest".
See also State v. Fannin, 578 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Contra Henry v. State, 581 So.2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Under Allen and Donald, I conclude that if the court is required to impose a life sentence under section 775.084(4)(a)1 and (4)(b)1 for first-degree felonies, then it must also impose incarceration for a term of years under section 775.084(4)(a) 2-3 and (4)(b) 2-3 for second- and third-degree felonies. Cf. State v. Leatherwood, 561 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (illegal for trial court to place on probation defendant who has been convicted of offense that requires minimum mandatory sentence). The sentencing method followed in this case does not appear to have been followed prior to the supreme court's decision in Lambert. It may well be that many trial judges regret their inability to depart more than one cell on a violation of probation under the guidelines.