
    Rick Lefred BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-2443.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 2, 1992.
    On Motion for Rehearing May 27, 1992.
    
      Rick Lefred Bell, pro se.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Wendy S. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
   KAHN, Judge.

Rick Bell appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion filed under Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant entered a guilty plea to unrelated armed robberies. Pursuant to plea negotiation, the trial court sentenced appellant to two concurrent twelve year sentences, each with minimum mandatory three year sentences, and provided that the minimum mandatory three year sentences would be consecutive. The pronouncement of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences within otherwise concurrent sentences has been approved, so long as the offenses giving rise to the mandatory minimum terms arose from separate and distinct criminal episodes. Gladden v. State, 556 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Perez v. State, 524 So.2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1056, 109 S.Ct. 1321, 103 L.Ed.2d 590 (1989). In a slightly different context, this court has held that a three year minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, may be imposed consecutively to a fourteen year term required for trafficking in cocaine, which term itself included a five year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 893.135(1), Florida Statutes. McDonald v. State, 564 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

As noted above, the present case involved a negotiated plea. We approve the reasoning of Gladden and Perez, and affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

In his motion for rehearing, appellant contends that we overlooked the fact that his second mandatory sentence is to run consecutive to the entire sentence imposed in Case Number 89-14969 and is therefore an improper split or fragmented sentence. Appellant’s argument has no merit. As the state explained in its answer brief:

[T]he mandatory minimum terms did not violate the rule against split and fragmented sentences. The combined effect of the two sentences is as follows: Appellant serves the first three-year mandatory minimum term; appellant then proceeds immediately to serve the second three-year mandatory minimum term; and, appellant then serves the remainder of the two concurrent twelve-year terms. Appellant’s mandatory minimum terms are not split up or fragmented, but are to be served one after the other.

We construe appellant’s sentences as stated above, and therefore deny appellant’s motion for rehearing.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.  