
    Curtis Lee POWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. SS-520.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 27, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1981.
    Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Thomas Presnell, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions for first degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault. Four points are raised on appeal, only one of which merits comment.

Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his request to have the jury instructed on penalties for the crimes for which he was then on trial. At the conclusion of the charge to the jury, defense counsel reminded the court of the previous request and the court noted his exception for the record.

This issue has been decided by the Florida Supreme Court in Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1980), rehearing denied, February 27, 1981. The court there held that if the denial of a defense request for an instruction on penalties has been properly preserved on appeal the conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. In the present case we find the defendant has properly preserved the point on appeal and is entitled to receive the benefit of the court’s ruling in Tascano.

The judgments of conviction are reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

ERVIN, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has filed a Motion for Rehearing/Request for Certification/Motion to Stay Issuance of Mandate. With regard to the Motion for Rehearing, appellee contends that the error of the trial court refusing to instruct the jury pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) as to maximum and minimum sentences was not preserved for appellate review or alternatively does not require reversal because evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming.

The record reflects that the trial court twice noted appellant’s exception to the court’s denial of the requested instruction. Thus, the point was preserved for appellate review. In Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1980), the Supreme Court ruled that a trial court’s refusal to give such an instruction upon request was error; that the requirement that the instruction be given when requested is mandatory. The trial court’s error in this respect cannot be deemed harmless. Murray v. State, 403 So.2d 417 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, we adhere to our opinion of reversal. The Motion to Stay Issuance of the Mandate is denied as is the Request for Certification.

ERVIN, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.  