reduce Butler’s sentence to less than he bargained for. Cf. Shanks v. State, 429 So.2d 1366, 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (affirming denial of motion to vacate judgment and sentence arising from negotiated plea agreement because “it affirmatively appears from the record that the defendant was sentenced to exactly that for which he bargained”). Had the trial court properly structured the sentences, Butler would face the same total sentence he agreed to — the same total sentence he faces now — and there would be no question about its legality. Yet Butler’s rule 3.800 motion did not ask the trial court to restructure his sentence by imposing consecutive sentences, a restructuring that would offer Butler little practical benefit. See Manning v. Tunnell, 943 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). What he sought instead was a reduced
holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court   recognizing general rule that an appellate court cannot address claims that were not raised below holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court