author: ANSTEAD, J.

text:
    BRANDON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Maria MURRAY, et al., Respondents.
    No. SC05-1864.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 10, 2007.
    William Jeremiah Tolton, III, Randy J. Ogden, and J. Russell Smith of Ogden and Sullivan, P.A., Tampa, Florida, and Steven J Wisotsky of Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
    George A. Vaka of Vaka, Larson and Johnson, P.L., Tampa, Florida, Edwin P. Krieger, Tampa, Florida, Christopher J. Schulte and Thomas M. Hoeler of Burton, Schulte, Weekley, Hoeler, McLaughlin and Beytin, P.A., Tampa, Florida, for Respondents.
   ANSTEAD, J.

Petitioner, Brandon Regional Hospital, seeks review of the decision in Brandon Regional Hospital v. Murray, 910 So.2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction based upon express and direct conflict with other district court decisions. See art. V § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the result of the district court decision below, and hold that a claimant in a medical malpractice case is entitled to discovery of the privileges granted to a physician by a hospital, but is not entitled to the actual records of the credentials committee within the hospital that may have been involved in the process of determining those privileges.

Proceedings to Date

Maria and Daniel Murray (the Murrays) instituted a medical malpractice action against Brandon Regional Hospital (Brandon) and others under chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2001). The Murrays allege that a physician on staff at Brandon, Dr. Wayne S. Blocker, was not properly credentialed by the hospital to perform the surgical procedures Mrs. Murray underwent at Brandon. Mrs. Murray now alleges these procedures were negligently performed and resulted in her injuries. The Murrays seek to hold Brandon responsible for Mrs. Murray’s injuries.

During discovery, the Murrays moved to compel Dr. Blocker to produce the list of privileges that he was granted through the hospital’s credentialing process, which included consideration by Brandon’s peer review credentials committee. Brandon and Dr. Blocker objected to production of the list, and Brandon sought a protective order under sections 395.0191 and 766.101, Florida Statutes (2001). The trial court denied the motion and ordered production of the list, finding that the list constituted a final report as described in Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. State Agency for Healthcare Administration, 741 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and was not entitled to the confidentiality protection provided by sections 766.101 and 395.0191, Florida Statutes (2001). Brandon challenged this order by a petition for certiorari review to the Second District. In its decision, while acknowledging conflict with other district court decisions, the Second District agreed with the trial court and denied relief. The opinion concluded:

The trial court found that the list is not protected from disclosure. We agree and deny the petition on the authority of Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. State Agency for Healthcare Administration, 741 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). But see Iglesias v. It’s a Living, Inc., 782 So.2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Columbia Park Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Gibbs, 728 So.2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Columbia Park Med. Ctr. v. Gibbs, 723 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp. v. Jones, 584 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Murray, 910 So.2d at 881. This Court subsequently granted review based on the Second District’s decision being in express and direct conflict with other district court decisions, including those cited in the opinion.

ANALYSIS

This Court has acknowledged that the Legislature, as part of an effort to control the escalating costs of health care in the state, has enacted legislation to encourage self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219-20 (Fla.1984) (interpreting former section 768.40(4), the predecessor to section 766.101). As part of this scheme to encourage self-regulation the Legislature has also extensively provided for confidentiality of these peer review proceedings. The peer review statutes provide, in relevant part, that the investigations, proceedings, and records of a peer review committee are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters that are the subject of evaluation and review. §§ 395.0191(8), 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (2001). The issue before this Court is whether a list generated by a hospital, which includes a peer review committee recommendation delineating the privileges given to a member of a hospital staff, is protected from discovery under the confidentiality provisions of sections 395.0191 and 766.101, Florida Statutes.

The Court’s interpretation of the history of these statutes thus far has been to err on the side of protecting the confidentiality of the peer review process. For example, in Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla.1992), we interpreted the language of the statutes to include not only documents or records produced by a peer review committee, but also documents considered by the committee as part of its decision-making process. Cruger specifically rejected the holding in Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. Akers, 560 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), that physicians’ applications and supporting documentation seeking hospital privileges were not included in the privilege from disclosure. Cruger, 599 So.2d at 114.

The district courts have followed our lead. In Iglesias v. It’s a Living, Inc., 782 So.2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the Third District, relying on our decision in Cruger, held that “[djocuments created or considered by a hospital peer review or credentialing committee are privileged.” 782 So.2d at 964 (citing Dade County Med. Ass’n v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cruger, 599 So.2d at 111). The Fifth District has also explicitly interpreted the confidentiality privilege in the peer review statutes to include a physician’s application for privileges and the documents issued by the committee outlining those privileges. Columbia Park Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Gibbs, 728 So.2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (extending its ruling in Columbia Park Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Gibbs, 723 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). The Fourth District issued a similar holding in Boca Raton Community Hospital v. Jones, 584 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Hence, district court case law in Florida has uniformly denied discovery of documents created by a peer review committee in civil litigation under sections 766.101 and 395.0191, Florida Statutes.

SECOND DISTRICT

In Bayfront Medical, the Second District considered the issue of whether the Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) was entitled to access certain peer review documents in the exercise of its regulatory duties. 741 So.2d at 1226. After quoting extensively from both the statutes outlining the regulatory scheme for AHCA and the statutes granting confidential status to the peer review process, the district court reversed in part a trial court order upholding the validity of an agency subpoena. Id. at 1227-29. The court held that the trial court erred in ordering production of the minutes of the hospital’s department of surgery because those documents were protected by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). Id. at 1226. However, the Second District concluded that while the records of the investigative portion of the peer review panel are privileged and protected from disclosure, the report of the results of the investigation by the peer review panel do not carry the same privilege:

However, the report of the results of such “peer review” investigations, as contrasted to the actual records of the investigative procedures of the “peer review5’ panel, is not clothed with the same privilege. Appellee’s subpoena sought the following from Appellant:
The minutes of the department of surgery meeting in which the care of [Ms. Jane Doe] on March 25, 1997, was discussed along with any recommendations and corrective action which resulted from such discussions.
We reverse the summary judgment entered below insofar as it approved the subpoena requiring production of the minutes of the meeting of the department of surgery. That portion of the subpoena directed toward the recommendations and corrective action taken are not privileged from discovery by Appellee.

741 So.2d at 1229 (second and third emphasis added). In Murray, the Second District extended the Bayfront Medical ruling permitting access by AHCA to recommendations and corrective action by a peer review committee to also permit discovery in private civil litigation of the results of the peer review process, in this case the committee’s action recommending approval of the grant of certain practice privileges in the hospital. Murray, 910 So.2d at 881.

Peer Review Records

Section 895.0191(8), Florida Statutes (2001), provides:

The investigations, proceedings, and records of the board, or agent thereof with whom there is a specific written contract for the purposes of this section, as described in this section shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such board, and no person who was in attendance at a meeting of such board or its agent shall be permitted or required to testify in any such civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such board or its agent or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such board or its agent or any members thereof. However, information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any such civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such board; nor should any person who testifies before such board or who is a member of such board be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge, but such witness cannot be asked about his or her testimony before such a board or opinions formed by him or her as a result of such board hearings.

(Emphasis added.)

Similarly, section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2001), provides:

The investigations, proceedings, and records of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee, and no person who was in attendance at a meeting of such committee shall be permitted or required to testify in any such civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. However, information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any such civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such committee, nor should any person who testifies before such committee or who is a member of such committee be prevented from testifying as to matters within his or her knowledge, but the said witness cannot be asked about his or her testimony before such a committee or opinions formed by him or her as a result of said committee hearings.

(Emphasis added.) These statutes provide express protection both to the “records” of the peer review committee, and to the “findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions, or other actions of such committee.” Contrary to the conclusion and opinion of the Second District below, we conclude these provisions render as confidential a record of a peer review committee containing its recommendations.

We further conclude that the reasoning in Bayfront Medical cannot be extended to civil malpractice litigation. Unlike the parties seeking access to documents submitted to, reviewed by, or created by the peer review committees in the other cases discussed, AHCA has been granted explicit statutory authority to inspect most records at licensed healthcare facilities. 741 So.2d at 1226. AHCA has been granted access to certain records by virtue of its statutory duty to review disciplinary actions at licensed medical facilities. The Second District, recognizing this duty, nevertheless has limited AHCA’s inspection to records that are not part of the investigative portion of a facility’s peer review panel, while allowing access to the final actions of the panel. On the other hand, the confidentiality provisions of the statutes set out above remain operative as to civil litigation outside the regulatory context.

Hospital Records

However, notwithstanding the hospital’s claim that the records of its peer review committees are not subject to discovery, it concedes that the Murrays are entitled to discovery of the medical privileges the hospital may have granted to Dr. Blocker at any given time. The hospital acknowledges, and we agree, that there is nothing in the legislative scheme for peer review that would prevent a patient from securing such information from a hospital that has granted a physician practice privileges within the hospital, even though a portion of the process for determining the privileges to be granted may involve a peer review committee. The availability of such information would appear fundamental and essential to any patient’s decision to consent to a medical procedure to be performed by a physician in the hospital.

We find nothing in the statutory scheme protecting the internal activities of a peer review committee and its records that would exempt a hospital from disclosure of its decision to grant or deny certain practice privileges to a physician. Similarly, while the statutory scheme grants explicit protection to peer review committee records, there is no such statutory protection extended to separate hospital records that may contain information provided by or partially based upon peer review committee action. Indeed, because the focus of the dispute in this case has been on discovery of the practice privileges granted by the hospital to the physician, there does not appear to have been a discrete judicial determination as to whether the document produced in this case is a hospital record or a peer review committee record.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, because we conclude that the information ordered disclosed by the trial court and the district court is not protected from disclosure, we approve of the result of the district court’s decision as explained above, but we do not approve its reasoning.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

LEWIS, C.J., concurs in result only.

      . However, the statutory scheme also provides that information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not immune to discovery merely because they were presented during the proceedings of the committee.

      . In November 2004, the Florida Constitution was amended to provide for other access to medical records. See art. X, § 25, Fla. Const. Subsequent rulings have disagreed whether the amendment applies retroactively, and this Court has granted review. See Notami Hosp. of Fla., Inc. v. Bowen, 927 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Florida Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 932 So.2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); review granted, 926 So.2d 1269 (Fla.2006). Because this amendment was not raised as an issue in the trial or appellate proceedings herein, we express no view as to application of this amendment to this litigation.

      . The court stated:
      The access provided by section 395.0197(11) is limited to that pertaining to the “risk management’’ program. “Peer review’’ is a separate process under which the peer review panel investigates and determines whether grounds for discipline exist with respect to a staff member or physician. The peer review panel makes recommendations to the hospital governing board which then considers the recommendations and decides upon its action. We conclude that the records of the investigative portion of the peer review panel are privileged from disclosure by sections 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5). The courts of this state have consistently construed the privilege and confidentiality of "peer review” records in the broadest manner to protect the integrity of the "peer review” process. We are not persuaded to do otherwise. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984); Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992); All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Davis, 590 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center v. Smith, 732 So.2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Munroe Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Rountree, 721 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Variety Children's Hosp. v. Mishler, 670 So.2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Century Medical Centers, Inc. v. Marin, 686 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 695 So.2d 698 (Fla.1997); Palm Beach Gardens Comm. Hosp., Inc. v. O’Brien, 651 So.2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Mount Sinai Medical Center v. Bernstein, 645 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Bay Medical Center v. Sapp, 535 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
      741 So.2d at 1229 (emphasis added).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PARIENTE, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Jackie Cornelius WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC06-594.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 10, 2007.

      James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Robert J. Krauss, Bureau Chief, Tampa Criminal Appeals, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
   PARIENTE, J.

In this case we answer a question certified by the Second District Court of Appeal to be of great public importance:

May the crime of lewd or lascivious battery prohibited by section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes (2002), be a permissive lesser included offense of the crime of sexual battery charged pursuant to section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes (2002)?

Williams v. State, 922 So.2d 418, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the Second District.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The State charged Williams by information with sexual battery with a deadly weapon or use of force likely to cause serious personal injury under section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes (2002). Williams proceeded to a trial before a jury. At trial, the alleged victim, who was fifteen at the time of the incident, testified that she and Williams, who told her he was nineteen, met and became friends in the fall of 2002. She testified that on a visit to Williams’ house in May 2003, Williams violently raped her and then attempted to kill her to keep her from calling the police. During the struggle, she grabbed a pair of scissors from Williams and stabbed him in the shoulder. The struggle moved out of Williams’ house and into the street, where a motorist interceded. The alleged victim suffered a cut on her eyebrow requiring seven stitches, cuts on her finger, and a bite mark. There was no indication of trauma to her vulva, hymen, vagina, or cervix.

In a taped interview and again while testifying at trial, Williams, twenty-nine, stated that he and the alleged victim had consensual sex, but she then became aggressive when he said he would not leave his wife and son for her. He stated that she attacked him with scissors, then ran outside and told a woman in a car that Williams raped her and was trying to kill her. The officer who interviewed him testified that Williams had stab wounds and was bleeding from his left bicep and lower leg. Williams testified that the alleged victim had lied to him about her age.

The State requested the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4)(a), sexual battery without physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury under section 794.011(5), and simple battery under section 784.03, Florida Statutes (2002). Defense counsel objected to the instruction on lewd or lascivious battery as a lesser included offense, relying on prior case law and further relying on the absence of lewd or lascivious battery from the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses for the crime charged. Over defense objection, the trial court instructed the jury on lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4)(a) as the first lesser included offense of the charged crime, as follows:

Before you can find the defendant guilty of lewd or lascivious battery, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. One, [V.G.] was 12 years of age or older, but less than 16 years of age; and two, that the defendant committed an act upon her in which the sexual organ of the defendant penetrated or had union with the vagina of [V.G.]. Neither the victim’s lack of chastity nor the victim’s consent is a defense to the crime charged.

The trial court also instructed the jury on sexual battery without physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury, under section 794.011(5), which is listed on the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses as a necessarily lesser included offense of sexual battery under section 794.011(3), and further instructed on simple battery. The jury found Williams guilty of the lesser included offense of lewd or lascivious battery.

On appeal, the Second District rejected Williams’ argument that lewd or lascivious battery is under no circumstances a lesser included offense of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or use of actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury. The Second District determined that the information alleged the statutory elements of lewd or lascivious battery and the evidence at trial supported each of the elements: sexual activity as defined in section 800.04 and a victim age twelve to fifteen. Accordingly, the Second District held that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on lewd or lascivious battery as a lesser included offense. Williams, 922 So.2d at 421. However, because “[ijssues concerning the 1999 amendments to section 800.04 seem to be arising with some frequency,” the Second District certified the question of great public importance as to whether lewd or lascivious battery prohibited by section 800.04(4) can be a permissive lesser included offense of sexual battery charged pursuant to section 794.011(3). Id

ANALYSIS

The analysis that follows first answers the certified question and explains why lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4)(a) should be considered a permissive lesser included offense of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or physical force likely to cause serious personal injury under section 794.011(3). Second, the analysis shows that the information and evidence presented at trial encompassed the elements of lewd or lascivious battery, justifying an instruction thereon. Because these matters involve solely legal determinations based on undisputed facts, our review of the Second District’s decision is de novo. See State v. Florida, 894 So.2d 941, 945 (Fla.2005).

A. The Certified Question

The certified question in this case concerns permissive lesser included offenses. The Court recently explained the distinction between necessary and permissive lesser included offenses:

Lesser included offenses fall into two categories: necessary and permissive. Necessarily lesser included offenses are those offenses in which the statutory elements of the lesser included offense are always subsumed within those of the charged offense. State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167, 1176 (Fla.2006). A permissive lesser included offense exists when “the two offenses appear to be separate [on the face of the statutes], but the facts alleged in the accusatory pleadings are such that the lesser [included] offense cannot help but be perpetrated once the greater offense has been.” State v. Weller, 590 So.2d 923, 925 n. 2 (Fla.1991).

Sanders v. State, 944 So.2d 203, 206 (Fla.2006) (alteration in original).

Although this Court held in State v. Hightower, 509 So.2d 1078 (Fla.1987), that lewd and lascivious conduct is not a lesser included offense of sexual battery, our decision preceded a major revision to section 800.04 in 1999. In Hightoioer, we held that “[t]he crime of lewd and lascivious conduct was not and is not a necessarily included offense of the crime of sexual battery.” Id. at 1079. In Welsh v. State, 850 So.2d 467 (Fla.2003), we extended this holding to also preclude instruction on lewd or lascivious conduct as a permissive lesser included offense of capital sexual battery. Id. at 468. However, the version of section 800.04 addressed in both High-tower and Welsh provided that lewd or lascivious conduct could only be perpetrated “without committing the crime of sexual battery.” § 800.04, Fla. Stat. (1997). This language was eliminated in the 1999 revision, which also created separate subsections for acts defined as lewd or lascivious “battery,” “molestation,” “conduct,” and “exhibition.” Ch. 99-201, § 6, Laws of Fla. In Welsh, the Court explicitly refrained from stating an opinion as to whether, under the 1999 revision, “lewd and lascivious conduct is a necessary or permissive lesser included offense of capital sexual battery.” 850 So.2d at 471 n. 5. The deletion of the “unique language” in section 800.04 that made lewd or lascivious conduct and sexual battery “mutually exclusive,” Hightower, 509 So.2d at 1079, created the possibility that one or more of the offenses specified in that statute could constitute lesser included offenses to sexual battery under section 794.011.

In determining whether lewd or lascivious battery is a permissive lesser included offense of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or physical force likely to cause serious personal injury, the pertinent inquiry is whether the greater crime may be charged in a manner encompassing the lesser.

Section 794.011(3) provides:

(3) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person’s consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious ' personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

Section 800.04(4)(a) provides that a person who “[ejngages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age” commits lewd or lascivious battery. The definitions of “sexual battery” in chapter 794 and “sexual activity” in chapter 800 are identical, both described in pertinent part as “oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object.” Compare, § 794.011(l)(h), Fla. Stat. (2002) with § 800.04(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). Further, sexual activity with a victim age twelve to fifteen violates both provisions. Accordingly, when the State alleges that the victim was between ages twelve and fifteen in a count charging a violation of section 794.011(3) (sexual battery as defined), that charge subsumes lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4)(a) (sexual activity as defined).

Therefore, lewd or lascivious battery is a permissive lesser included offense of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or physical force likely to cause serious personal injury. The certified question should be answered in the affirmative.

B. This Case

An instruction on a permissive lesser included offense is appropriate only if the allegations of the greater offense contain all the elements of the lesser offense and the evidence at trial would support a verdict on the lesser offense. See Welsh, 850 So.2d at 470. If an offense meets the criteria for an instruction and verdict choice as either a necessarily or permissive lesser included offense, the State may insist on its inclusion, even over defense objection. See State v. Johnson, 601 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla.1992) (holding that State has right to instruction on permissive lesser included offense over defense objection); Gallo v. State, 491 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.1986) (holding that if State declines to consent to defense waiver of instruction on necessarily lesser included offense, waiver is ineffectual and instruction must be given), receded from on other grounds by Gould v. State, 577 So.2d 1302, 1305 (Fla.1991).

In this case, the State alleged the elements of lewd or lascivious battery and presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict thereon. In the information, the State charged both that the defendant committed an act meeting the definition of sexual activity and that the victim was “twelve years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age.” These are the two elements of lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4)(a). At trial, the State presented legally sufficient evidence of the sexual activity and age elements of lewd or lascivious battery. The alleged victim testified that she was fifteen at the time of the offense and that Williams’ penis penetrated her vagina. In a statement to police and again in his trial testimony, Williams acknowledged that he and the alleged victim engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse and claimed that she had lied about her age.

Williams presented two grounds for his objection to the instruction at trial. First, he pointed to the absence of lewd or lascivious battery from the list of lesser included offenses for sexual battery with a deadly weapon or use of physical force likely to cause serious personal injury under section 794.011(3). However, the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses included in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions is not the final authority on lesser included offenses. Although the schedule “is presumptively correct and complete,” Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 n. 7 (Fla.1981), “[t]rial courts are charged with the responsibility to determine and properly instruct the jury on the prevailing law.” Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (95-1), 657 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Fla.1995). Second, Williams relied on Hightower and Welsh, which are inapplicable to the 2002 version of section 800.04, and on State v. Robinson, 771 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which merely cites to Hightower as authority for its conclusion that lewd and lascivious conduct is not a necessarily lesser included offense of sexual battery. Id. at 1258. Thus, neither of these grounds has merit. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling the defense objection to the instruction on lewd or lascivious battery.

CONCLUSION

Despite its current absence from the Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses for sexual battery with a deadly weapon or use of physical force likely to cause serious personal injury, lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4)(a) is a permissive lesser included offense of a sexual battery charged under section 794.011(3). We therefore answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the Second District’s decision in this case.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ„ concur.

      . We decline to address Williams’ additional argument that the instruction on lewd or lascivious battery constituted reversible error because that offense was equal in degree and potential penalty to sexual battery without great force or violence, the next lower offense on the verdict form. That argument was not presented to either the trial court or the Second District. An issue raised on appeal must first be presented to the lower court, "and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation." Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1993) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)).


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Daryl WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC05-2163.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 17, 2007.
    Beverly A. Pohl of Broad and Cassel of Fort Lauderdale, FL, and Cynthia Morales of Broad and Cassel of Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Celia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal a decision of a district court of appeal that certifies conflict with decisions of the First, Second, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal. Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set out below, we quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and hold that a claim asserting a discrepancy between an oral and written sentence is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding for correction of an illegal sentence.

BACKGROUND

Daryl Williams pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced on December 21, 1999. On February 4, 2005, Williams filed a motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging that the sentence that was pronounced orally was “eleven years straight up,” but that his written sentence reflected a longer term of 175 months (fourteen years, seven months). The trial court denied Williams’ motion as legally insufficient. The trial court noted that the court clerk’s minutes from the sentencing in the record demonstrated that the oral pronouncement was the same as the written sentence and attached both to its order denying relief, but did not attach a transcript of the sentencing proceedings.

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Williams’ motion and certified conflict with Fitzpatrick v. State, 863 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Berthiaume v. State, 864 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Williams, 913 So.2d at 1239. The district court further concluded that “a mere allegation of a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment is insufficient to comply with [rule 3.800(a)]” and certified conflict with Watts v. State, 790 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), on that issue. Williams, 913 So.2d at 1240.

JURISDICTION

Williams sought review here based upon the district court’s certification that its decision expressly conflicted with decisions of other district courts. During proceedings for review before this Court, Williams obtained a copy of the transcript of the hearing, which reflects that the oral pronouncement of sentence did not conflict with the written judgment and sentence. Williams concedes his claim is now moot but advocates our retention of jurisdiction because of the continuing existence of express and direct conflict among the district courts. Upon reflection, we have determined to retain jurisdiction in the instant action to address the conflict in decisions certified by the district court and resolve the uncertainty with regard to the utilization of rule 3.800(a) to resolve discrepancies between written sentences and oral pronouncements. See State v. Matthews, 891 So.2d 479, 483-84 (Fla.2004). “The mootness doctrine does not destroy our jurisdiction because the question before this Court is of great public importance and is likely to recur.” Id. at 483 (citing Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984)).

ANALYSIS

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) provides:

(a) Correction. A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it, or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing scoresheet, or a sentence that does not grant proper credit for time served when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief, provided that a party may not file a motion to correct an illegal sentence under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or during the pendency of a direct appeal.

Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). We have explained that this procedural rule allows for petition to the courts to correct sentencing errors that may be identified on the face of the record and, because such errors may be resolved as a matter of law, do not require contested evidentiary hearings. See Renaud v. State, 926 So.2d 1241 (Fla.2006); State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998); Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998); State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 988 (Fla.1995).

We have generally defined an “illegal sentence” as one that imposes a punishment or penalty that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes and laws could impose under any set of factual circumstances. Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Fla.2001). The First, Second, Third, and Fifth Districts have interpreted this to include an otherwise legal sentence set out in a written judgment and sentence that does not comport with the sentence orally pronounced in open court; these courts have authorized correction of this type of error in a rule 3.800(a) postconviction proceeding. See Hood v. State, 851 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Greene v. State, 853 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Cote v. State, 841 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), quashed, 913 So.2d 544 (Fla.2005); Fitzpatrick, 863 So.2d at 463; Watts, 790 So.2d at 1176; Dobarganes v. State, 930 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Berthiaume, 864 So.2d at 1258. These courts have also held that a trial court cannot summarily deny a movant’s motion to correct a sentence under rule 3.800(a) without attaching the portion of the record that refutes the movant’s assertion. See Melton v. State, 908 So.2d 1136, 1136-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Berthiaume, 864 So.2d at 1258; Fitzpatrick, 863 So.2d at 463; Watts, 790 So.2d at 1176. Only the Fourth District holds that such a claim in not cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Williams, 913 So.2d at 1239-40.

In Fitzpatrick, the First District found that since no portion of the sentencing transcript had been attached to the order denying the movant’s motion, or otherwise provided in the record on appeal, the order had to be reversed and remanded so that the trial court could either attach the transcript or take other necessary action. 863 So.2d at 463; see also Byers v. State, 916 So.2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

In Watts, the Second District held that an allegation that a written sentence differs from the oral pronouncement is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding and ordered the trial court to review the record on remand to determine whether there was in fact a discrepancy. 790 So.2d at 1176. The Second District reversed the order denying relief and directed the trial court to attach the portions of the sentencing proceedings record that would conclusively refute the movant’s claim should the court determine there was no discrepancy. Id.; see also Ferguson v. State, 778 So.2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). But see Williams v. State, 705 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (claims of discrepancy between oral and written sentence should be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850).

In Melton, the Third District essentially-mandated a similar procedure requiring the trial court to determine whether the record establishes that the movant is entitled to relief. 908 So.2d at 1136 (applying the Third District’s standard to motions filed under rules 3.800, 3.850, and 3.853). See also Dobarganes, 930 So.2d at 765.

Finally, the Fifth District has agreed that movants may seek redress for discrepancies between written and oral sentences under rule 3.800(a). See Berthiaume, 864 So.2d at 1257; see also England v. State, 879 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Pittman v. State, 859 So.2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Polite v. State, 847 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Thomas v. State, 778 So.2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). But see Chico v. State, 734 So.2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (rule 3.800 motion not cognizable because relief was not apparent on the face of the record).

In Williams, the Fourth District concluded that “a mere allegation of a difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment is insufficient to comply with [rule 3.800(a)].” 913 So.2d at 1240. Unlike the other district courts, the Fourth District has suggested that a motion to correct illegal sentence is only available where the sentence either exceeds the statutory maximum or otherwise defies statutory limitations. Campbell, 718 So.2d at 886. However, in Covell v. State, 891 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Fourth District affirmed a trial court’s denial of an appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion without prejudice to file a rule 3.850 motion. Similarly, in Rinderer v. State, 857 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District chose to treat a rule 3.800 motion as a rule 3.850 motion and held such motion met the requirements for stating a claim under rule 3.850.

Oral Pronouncement of Sentence

This Court has held that a court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document. See Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla.2003); Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla.1996). When the written document results in a sentence that is more severe than the sentence announced in court, this Court has considered it a potential violation of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. See Ashley, 850 So.2d at 1268-69; Justice, 674 So.2d at 126. In effect, under our decisions in Ashley and Justice, we have determined that a written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence. Indeed, we have restricted the authority of a trial court to enter a conflicting written sentence in this manner. State v. Jones, 753 So.2d 1276, 1277 n. 2 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, no court has the authority to enter such a sentence, since the oral pronouncement controls and constitutes the legal sentence imposed. For this reason, we agree with the decisions of the First, Second, Third, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal that a motion alleging a discrepancy between the oral and written sentences should be cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding.

Rule 3.800(a) provides that a court may at any time correct a multitude of sentencing errors at any time the error is discovered, provided that a party may not file a motion under 3.800(a) during the time allowed for filing under 3.800(b)(1). Certainly, rule 3.800(a) encompasses any sentencing discrepancy apparent on the face of the record that may be resolved as a matter of law without the need for an evidentiary hearing to resolve issues of fact. The policy underlying this rule includes concerns that a defendant not be subject to punishment or imprisonment beyond that which was lawfully imposed. Although the Fourth District opinion suggests that corrections under the rule may be limited to sentences that are statutorily unfounded, the rule and our case law do not support such a limitation, since, for example, the rule itself allows correction for a calculation error or credit for time served. It follows, then, that an error in recording the actual sentence pronounced in open court during sentencing (much like the time allotted for credit for time served, or the time calculated on the scoresheet) may also be determined from an examination of the record and should also be included in the type of error the courts can correct under 3.800(a).

It appears that resolution of this issue has also been affected by our pronouncements that rule 3.800(a) errors should appear “on the face of the record.” Although obviously important and controlling, sentencing proceedings are not always transcribed and placed in written form in the trial court record, while the written formal judgment and sentence, often entered later, is filed in the record like other court orders. In some cases where the district courts have considered a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence the movant was able to show the discrepancy on the face of the record. See Byers, 916 So.2d at 923; England, 879 So.2d at 661; Pittman, 859 So.2d at 556. However, in other instances where the district courts have approved of the use of rule 3.800(a) to resolve this issue, the district courts have required trial courts to attach the relevant portion of the sentencing records to any order denying relief. See, e.g., Dobarganes, 930 So.2d at 765; Berthiaume, 864 So.2d at 1258.

This issue arises in part because we have not yet been able to ensure that a written judgment and sentence is always issued simultaneously with the oral pronouncement of sentence. While Florida’s criminal trial courts are working with diligence towards that goal, there remains the chance that a conflicting written sentence may be issued sometime after the oral pronouncement. However, since we have held that the oral pronouncement is, in effect, the controlling disposition, we also conclude that the oral imposition of sentence should at all times be considered a necessary part of the official record if a transcript of the sentencing proceeding is in the court file or, alternatively, a petitioner attaches a certified copy of the sentencing transcript to the rule 3.800(a) motion. In this way the burden remains with the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement to relief on the face of the record. If the sentencing transcript is neither in the file nor attached to the motion, the motion should be denied without prejudice to the filing of an amended motion properly attaching the sentencing transcript.

Until we have achieved the simultaneous entry of a written judgment and oral pronouncement, and since the oral pronouncement controls, we urge trial courts to continue to be diligent in ensuring that the written sentence does conform with the oral pronouncement. However, in the meantime, when a claim of a conflict is asserted, trial courts should be able to determine by an examination of the record of the sentencing proceeding, but without the need for an evidentiary hearing, whether the written sentence conforms with the oral pronouncement and rule accordingly.

CONCLUSION

Because we conclude that a discrepancy between oral and written sentence is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding, we disapprove the district court’s decision to the extent it conflicts with this opinion. We recognize that the issue has been rendered moot in this case so that no further proceedings are necessary.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

      . The Fourth District relied on its earlier decision in Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Williams, 913 So.2d at 1239. The Fourth District's holding in Campbell is no different than its reasoning in Williams— the law that provides primacy to the oral pronouncement cannot be used to claim that a sentence is illegal. See Campbell, 718 So.2d at 886.

      . It is also within the trial court's authority to direct the State to file a response to the rule 3.800(a) motion so that the State may have an opportunity to explain an apparent discrepancy before the matter is adjudicated.


author: BELL, J.

text:
    Roy McDONALD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. SC05-2141.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 17, 2007.

      Abe Bailey, Miami, Florida, and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Miami Beach, FL, for Petitioner.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Celia A. Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   BELL, J.

We review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in McDonald v. State, 912 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), in which it certified conflict on two issues. First, it certified conflict with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hall v. State, 837 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Helms v. State, 890 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), on the issue of whether the mandatory minimum sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) statute, section 775.082(9) Florida Statutes (2000), must be imposed concurrently with a lesser mandatory minimum sentence under section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2000) (the 10-20-LIFE statute). Second, the Fourth District certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Frazier v. State, 877 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), on the issue of whether the mandatory sentence for first-degree robbery with a firearm under the PRR statute is thirty years or life in prison. As we explain, we approve the Fourth District’s decision in McDonald. We hold (1) that a mandatory minimum 10-20-LIFE sentence must be imposed concurrently with a PRR sentence even when the 10-20-LIFE sentence is the lesser sentence and (2) that the mandatory sentence for first-degree robbery with a firearm under the PRR statute is life in prison. Accordingly, we disapprove the decisions in Hall and Helms as to the first conflict issue. To the extent it conflicts with McDonald, we disapprove Frazier as to the second conflict issue.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The background of this case was well summarized by the Fourth District in McDonald as follows:

Roy McDonald appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion which raised five claims of an illegal sentence. We affirm the trial court’s denial of all five claims. We write to address two of the claims and sit en banc to recede from a series of prior decisions by this court which the state has shown are clearly contrary to the plain meaning and legislative intent of the 10-20-LIFE statute. § 775.087, Fla. Stat. (2000).
McDonald was convicted after jury trial of five felony counts: carjacking with a firearm, two counts of robbery with a firearm, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and grand theft auto. Because he committed these offenses just over two months after being released from prison, McDonald was properly designated and sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) on the first three counts which are enumerated offenses under the PRR statute. § 775.082(9)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (2000). The trial court imposed concurrent mandatory life sentences on the carjacking with a firearm and robbery with a firearm counts. § 775.082(9)(a)3a, Fla. Stat. (2000). As a PRR, McDonald must serve 100 percent of his life sentences and is not eligible for any form of early release. § 775.082(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000).
In addition to these mandatory minimum life sentences as a PRR, the trial court imposed concurrent ten-year mandatory minimum sentences on these counts for McDonald’s possession of a firearm ' during the offenses. § 775.087(2)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (2000) (10-20-LIFE statute).

912 So.2d at 74-75.

As stated above, the Fourth District considered two issues and certified conflict on each. First, the Fourth District considered “the legality of imposing mandatory minimum penalties under the PRR statute concurrently with the mandatory minimum penalties of the 10-20-LIFE statute.” Id. at 75. It determined that the language of the 10-20-LIFE statute requires that “the mandatory minimum terms of incarceration be included even where those terms are less than the sentence authorized under the PRR statute or any other provision of law.” Id. Accordingly, the Fourth District receded from its prior holdings in which it had extended this Court’s decision in Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000), to prohibit concurrent sentencing where the 10-20-LIFE statute would impose a sentence equal to or less than the sentence under the PRR statute. See McDonald, 912 So.2d at 75-76. On this issue, the Fourth District certified conflict with the decisions of the Second District in Hall and Helms.

Second, the Fourth District considered McDonald’s claim “that he was improperly given mandatory life sentences for his convictions for robbery with a firearm” because, according to Frazier v. State, 877 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), “under the PRR statute the mandatory sentence for robbery is thirty years in prison.” McDonald, 912 So.2d at 77 (citing §§ 812.13(2)(a), 775.082(9)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2000)). It determined that under this Court’s precedent in Knight v. State, 808 So.2d 210, 212 (Fla.2002), “the PRR statute requires a mandatory life sentence be imposed for any felony punishable by life, including first degree felonies punishable by life.” 912 So.2d at 77. On this second issue, the Fourth District certified conflict with Frazier.

We discuss each conflict issue in turn.

CERTIFIED CONFLICT ISSUES

I. Concurrent Sentencing Under the PRR Statute and the 10-20-LIFE Statute

We approve the Fourth District’s determination that the mandatory minimum sentence under the PRR statute must be imposed concurrently with a lesser mandatory minimum sentence under the 10-20-LIFE statute. To explain our reasoning, we first summarize the Fourth District’s reasoning in receding from its prior decisions in which it had extended our holding in Grant as well as its analysis of the language of the 10-20-LIFE statute. We then conduct a de novo review and briefly explain why we agree with the Fourth District’s analysis.

The Fourth District’s Analysis in McDonald

In McDonald, the Fourth District receded from a series of its prior decisions extending this Court’s holding in Grant to the question of whether the imposition of concurrent sentences under the 10-20-LIFE statute and the PRR statute was permissible. The issue we addressed in Grant was whether a sentence under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1997), the Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) statute, could be imposed concurrently with a sentence under the PRR statute where both sentences were of equal duration, but where the HFO sentence allowed for gain time and the PRR sentence did not. 770 So.2d at 659. Based on the language of the PRR statute expressing the Legislature’s intent that “qualifying offenders be punished to the ‘fullest extent of the law,’ including the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences,” this Court held that the HFO sentence could be imposed concurrently with the PRR sentence only if the HFO sentence was greater than the PRR sentence. Id. (quoting § 775.082(8)(d)(l), Fla. Stat. (1997)). This holding rested upon the conclusion that the imposition of an equal or lesser sentence under the HFO statute, which includes gain time, would violate the express provisions of the PRR statute mandating that the greater PRR sentence be served in full. Id,

Prior to McDonald, the Fourth District had extended the holding in Grant to cases involving concurrent sentencing under the PRR and 10-20-LIFE statutes. McDonald, 912 So.2d at 75-76. It had held that equal or lesser 10-20-LIFE sentences could not be imposed concurrently with a greater PRR sentence. However, in McDonald, after thoroughly reviewing the language of the 10-20-LIFE statute, the Fourth District receded from its prior decisions.

The pertinent language of the 10-20-LIFE statute provides as follows:

775.087 Possession or use of weapon; aggravated battery; felony reclassification; minimum sentence.—
(2)(a)l. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony, regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and the conviction was for:
c. Robbery;
n. Carjacking;
and during the commission of the offense, such person actually possessed a “firearm” or “destructive device” as those terms are defined in s. 790.001, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years....
(c) If the minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this section exceed the maximum sentences authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed. If the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to this section are less than the sentences that could be imposed as authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.08k, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required in this section.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the lato, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.

(Emphasis added.)

In McDonald, the Fourth District reasoned that the plain meaning of this statutory language, in particular the emphasized language of subsection (c), clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent that the mandatory minimum sentence under the 10-20-LIFE statute should be imposed where the criminal possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime regardless of whether a greater sanction may be imposed under another statutory provision. 912 So.2d at 75-76. In other words, the Fourth District concluded that the plain language of the 10-20-LIFE statute clearly mandates that the mandatory minimum sentences under the 10-20-LIFE statute and the PRR statute be imposed concurrently even where, as here, the 10-20-LIFE sentence is less than the PRR sentence. Id.

The Fourth District further concluded that the legislative intent expressed in section 775.087(2)(d), that violators be “punished to the fullest extent of the law,” is the same clear intent expressed in section 775.082(9)(d)(l) that was noted by this Court in Grant. Thus, the Fourth District concluded that the two statutes have a common legislative purpose and should be read in pari materia. McDonald, 912 So.2d at 76 (citing Mills v. State, 822 So.2d 1284, 1288 (Fla.2002), for proposition that “in the absence of contrary legislative intent related statutes should be read in pari materia ”). The Fourth District further reasoned that “[t]o the extent the provision of the PRR statute and the 10-20-LIFE law could be seen as conflicting, the specific provisions of the 10-20-LIFE law should control over the general provisions of the PRR statute.” Id. (citing Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.1959), explaining that “a special statute covering a particular subject matter is controlling over a general statutory provision covering the same other subjects in general terms”).

Our De Novo Review

“Our review of the [district court’s] decision addressing this issue of statutory interpretation is de novo.” Cason v. Florida Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs., 944 So.2d 306, 309 (Fla.2006) (citing B.Y. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004)). We agree with the Fourth District’s analysis. The meaning of the 10-20-LIFE statute is plain, and for the issue presented in this case, it is proper to construe it in pari materia with the PRR statute.

The 10-20-LIFE statute clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent that the 10-20-LIFE sentence be imposed concurrently even where another statutory sentence is greater. See § 775.087(2)(c) (“If the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to this section are less than the sentences that could'be imposed as authorized by s. 775.082 [including the PRR statute] ..., then the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required in this section.”). Moreover, the two related provisions of chapter 775 — the 10-20-LIFE statute, section 775.087, and the PRR statute, section 775.082' — should be construed in pari materia. As we have stated, “[t]he doctrine of in pari materia requires that statutes relating to the same subject or object be construed together to harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature’s intent.” Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222, 1229-30 (Fla.2005) (construing sections of chapter 61 — sections 61.046(7), 61.30(2)(a)(3), 61.08(2)(g), 61.30(6), and 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2004) — in pari materia, and finding that they collectively reflect the Legislature’s intent concerning alimony). And, as the Fourth District found, both the 10-20-LIFE statute and the PRR statute have a common legislative intent to “punish to the fullest extent of the law.” McDonald, 912 So.2d at 76 (quoting § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000)).

Moreover, in resolving any perceived conflict between the interpretation of the 10-20-LIFE statute and the PRR statute, the Fourth District properly construed the 10-20-LIFE statute as a “specific” statutory provision under the criminal code and the PRR statute as a “general” statutory provision. As noted by the Fourth District, this Court stated in Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665 (Fla.1959), that

[i]t is a well settled rule of statutory construction, however, that a special statute covering a particular subject matter is controlling over a general statutory provision covering the same and other subjects in general terms. In this situation “the statute relating to the particular part of the general subject will operate as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute to the extent only of the repugnancy, if any.” It has been said that this rule “is particularly applicable to criminal statutes in which the specific provisions relating to particular subjects carry smaller penalties than the general provision.”

Id. at 667 (citations omitted) (quoting Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Rd. & Bridge Dist., 71 Fla. 158, 71 So. 42, 47 (1916), and United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F.2d 614, 618 (N.D.Ill.1926)). The PRR statute is part of the general sentencing provision of chapter 775. It provides the mandatory minimum sentence for anyone deemed a prior releas-ee reoffender within the general sentencing scheme. See § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (2000). In other words, the PRR statute covers sentencing for all crimes, including those involving the use of a firearm. On the other hand, the 10-20-LIFE statute addresses the mandatory minimum sentence for the use or possession of a firearm in some manner during the commission of a specified crime. See § 775.087(2)(c). Accordingly, the Fourth District properly concluded that the more specific provisions contained in the 10-20-LIFE statute should control over the more general provisions of the PRR statute as interpreted in Grant. Additionally, the Fourth District properly concluded that the language of the 10-20-LIFE statute plainly requires that the mandatory minimum sentence be imposed concurrently with the minimum mandatory sentence of the PRR statute even though the 10-20-LIFE sentence is less than the PRR sentence. See § 775.087(2)(e).

We further note that this analysis is reconcilable with Grant. First, the decision and analysis in Grant were based solely on the express language of the PRR statute, not on constitutional grounds. See 770 So.2d at 659 (“While imposition of equal concurrent sentences thus did not violate double jeopardy principles, it did, nonetheless, violate the express provisions of the [PRR statute].”) Similarly, the decision in this case is based solely upon the language of the 10-20-LIFE statute. Secondly, based on the express language of both the PRR and the 10-20-LIFE statutes mandating that the defendant be punished to the fullest extent of the law, the concern addressed in Grant regarding gain time is not present in this case. In other words, like a PRR sentence, a 10-20-LIFE sentence must be served in full, and, thus, concurrently serving the lesser 10-20-LIFE sentence will not erode the greater PRR sentence.

We recognize that the imposition of a lesser sentence under the 10-20-LIFE statute concurrent with a greater sentence under the PRR statute will have very little, if any, practical effect in most cases. However, the Legislature has very clearly mandated that it is the policy of this State to deter the criminal use of firearms. This mandate is underscored by the widespread promulgation of the 10-20-LIFE law beyond mere statutory notice, through television commercials, posters, and other forms of advertising. This policy is further underscored by the statement of legislative intent in section 775.087, which was added in 1999, see ch. 99-12, § 1, at 538-42, Laws of Fla., and the accompanying increase to the mandatory minimum sentence under section 775.087 from three years for all crimes to ten years for all crimes except aggravated assault, possession of a firearm, or burglary. Id. In making these changes, the Legislature made the following extensive findings:

WHEREAS, Florida ranks among the most violent states in the nation, and
WHEREAS, in 1975 the Florida Legislature enacted legislation requiring a minimum mandatory sentence of three years in prison for possessing a gun during the commission or attempted commission of a violent felony, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted this mandatory penalty in order to protect citizens from criminals who are known to use guns during the commission of violent crimes, and
WHEREAS, the FBI reports that among persons identified in the felonious killings of law enforcement officers in 1997, 71% had prior criminal convictions, and one of every four were on probation or parole for other crimes when they killed the officers, and
WHEREAS, criminals who use guns during the commission of violent crimes pose an increased danger to the lives, health, and safety of Florida’s citizens and to Florida’s law enforcement officers who daily put their lives on the line to protect citizens from violent criminals, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature intends to hold criminals more accountable for their crimes, and intends for criminals who use guns to commit violent crimes to receive greater criminal penalties than they do today, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that when law enforcement officers put themselves in harm’s way to apprehend and arrest these gun-wielding criminals who terrorize the streets and neighborhoods of Florida, that these criminals be sentenced to longer mandatory prison terms than provided in current law, so that these offenders cannot again endanger law enforcement officers and the public, and
WHEREAS, there is a critical need for effective criminal justice measures that will ensure that violent criminals are sentenced to prison terms that will effectively incapacitate the offender, prevent future crimes, and reduce violent crime rates, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Legislature that criminals who use guns to commit violent crimes be vigorously prosecuted and that the state demand that minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment be imposed pursuant to this act, NOW, THEREFORE,

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 775.087, Florida Statutes, is amended....

Ch. 99-12, at 537-38, Laws of Fla. Because the Legislature clearly intends that criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes receive the maximum sentence, the mandatory minimum 10-20-LIFE sentence must be imposed even if it is less than another sentence that runs concurrently.

Given the above, we conclude that the Fourth District’s decision in McDonald properly construes the 10-20-LIFE statute. We hold that a lesser mandatory minimum 10-20-LIFE sentence must be imposed concurrently with a greater mandatory minimum PRR sentence.

II. Mandatory Sentence for Robbery under the PRR Statute

The second certified conflict issue is whether under the PRR statute the mandatory sentence for first-degree robbery with a firearm is thirty years or life imprisonment. McDonald relies on the Third District’s decision in Frazier to claim that the mandatory sentence is thirty years. See Frazier, 877 So.2d at 840 (holding that mandatory sentence for first-degree robbery with a firearm is thirty years but affirming life sentence on other grounds).

The Fourth District disagreed and certified conflict. McDonald, 912 So.2d at 77. Specifically, the Fourth District found that McDonald was properly sentenced under the PRR statute to a mandatory life sentence for the commission of a robbery with a firearm. It relied upon this Court’s decision in Knight, which held that “the PRR statute requires a mandatory life sentence be imposed for any felony punishable by life, including first degree felonies punishable by life.” McDonald, 912 So.2d at 77.

We agree with the Fourth District. In Knight, this Court rejected a nearly identical claim that the PRR statute only imposes a thirty-year maximum sentence for robbery with a firearm since it is a “felony of the first degree” rather than a “felony punishable by life.” We affirmed Knight’s life sentence under the PRR statute for armed robbery, holding that “the phrase ‘felonies punishable by life,’ used in [the PRR statute], provides for a mandatory life sentence for prison releasee reoffen-ders who commit either life felonies or first-degree felonies punishable by life.” 808 So.2d at 213-14. Pursuant to section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), armed robbery is a felony punishable by life. See § 812.13(2)(a) (“If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”). Consequently, McDonald was properly sentenced to life for first-degree robbery with a firearm.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we approve the decision of the Fourth District in McDonald on both certified conflict issues. Consequently, we disapprove the decisions of the Second District in Helms and Hall, and, to the extent it conflicts with this opinion, we disapprove the decision of the Third District in Frazier. In so doing, we hold that the minimum sentence mandated by the 10-20-LIFE statute must be imposed concurrently with the PRR sentence even when the 10-20-LIFE sentence is the lesser sentence. Further, we hold that under the PRR statute the mandatory sentence for first-degree robbery with a firearm is life in prison.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.

      . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

      . McDonald raised six issues for review. We limit our review to the two certified conflict issues because we find that McDonald’s other claims are without merit. With regard to the fifth issue McDonald raises, we note that McDonald was properly categorized as a “prison releasee reoffender” under section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2000).

      .Sitting en banc, the Fourth District expressly receded from the following cases in McDonald, 912 So.2d at 76-77: Smith v. State, 813 So.2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Brady v. State, 839 So.2d 836, 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Scott v. State, 842 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Hill v. State, 862 So.2d 815, 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Hill v. State, 869 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 871 So.2d 874 (Fla.2004); and Malcolm v. State, 873 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The certified conflict cases from the Second District, Hall and Helms, expressly rely on the Fourth District's prior decisions.

      . In Grant, this Court recognized that imposition of equal concurrent sentences under the PRR and HFO statutes does not violate double jeopardy principles but violates the provisions of the PRR statute. 770 So.2d at 659. Thus, the rule in Grant was not based on constitutional considerations but on the Legislature's intent as expressed in the PRR statute.

      . See supra note 3.

      . One situation where this may have some practical effect is when the greater PRR sentence is vacated for some reason but the lesser 10-20-LIFE sentence remains valid. The offender will still be required to serve the 10-20-LIFE sentence in full.

      . In Knight, this Court answered in the affirmative the following question of great public importance:
      DOES SECTION [775.082(8)(a)2], FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), WHICH MANDATES A LIFE SENTENCE FOR PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDERS WHO COMMIT "A FELONY PUNISHABLE BY LIFE,” APPLY BOTH TO LIFE FELONIES AND FIRST DEGREE FELONIES PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF YEARS NOT EXCEEDING LIFE?
      808 So.2d at 211. Section 775.082(8)(a)(2) was renumbered in 1998 as section 775.082(9)(a)(2). See ch. 98-204, § 10, Laws of Fla. Both versions of the PRR statute provide as follows:
      2. If the state attorney determines that a defendant is a prison releasee reoffender as defined in subparagraph 1., the state attorney may seek to have the court sentence the defendant as a prison releasee reoffender. Upon proof from the state attorney that establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is a prison releasee reoffender as defined in this section, such defendant is not eligible for sentencing under the sentencing guidelines and must be sentenced as follows:
      a. For a felony punishable by life, by a term of imprisonment for life;
      b. For a felony of the first degree, by a term of imprisonment of 30 years....