
    Clifford RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 92-2093.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Sept. 22, 1993.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant has raised a number of issues, two of which require discussion.

In Case No. 91-1892 CF, appellant’s plea agreement provided for concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed the five year statutory maximum, not the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand to provide appellant the opportunity to withdraw his plea in that case. See King v. State, 578 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA1991) (if the trial judge rejects the terms of the plea agreement the defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea).

In Case No. 91-1599 CF, we remand for correction of the written sentence orders for counts one through eight to omit any reference to a twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence.

We reject appellant’s remaining arguments and affirm his convictions and sentences in every other respect.

HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting.

I would reverse because of the admission of improper hearsay testimony indicating that appellant’s mother and girlfriend had provided the police with information upon which the police were able to secure a warrant for the appellant’s arrest. On this issue this case is almost identical to Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla. Bd DCA), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981), where the third district found error in the receipt of testimony that a police officer spoke with an unidentified woman and then proceeded to Postell’s home and arrested him. In my view, the appellant’s brief has it right when it says:

In the present case, the State not only elicited testimony that after receiving information from a non-testifying source, the police obtained an arrest warrant for Appellant and another individual, it specified that the source of the officer’s information was Appellant’s mother and girlfriend. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make the logical inference from that data. The effect of this evidence, then, was to bring impermissible hearsay evidence before the jury, thereby violating Appellant’s confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment. Consequently, his conviction must be reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.  