with Appellant that the trial court erred by denying his motion to correct sentencing error with regard to the mandatory minimum firearm enhancement on Count 5, sexual battery with a firearm, and, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to strike the firearm enhancement on that count. See Arnett v. State, 128 So.3d 87, 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the appellant’s sentence with directions to strike his mandatory minimum firearm enhancement sentence because a defendant’s sentence may not be enhanced pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, unless the defendant is charged with actually possessing a firearm, and noting that the jury’s finding of actual possession did not cure the charging defect); Green v. State, 18 So.3d 656, 656-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). We otherwise affirm Appellant’s convictions
holding in part that the information did not charge actual possession where it alleged that the defendant carried displayed used threatened or attempted to use any weapon or firearm holding that a factual finding of use or threatened use of a firearm by the sentencing court violates a defendants right to a trial by jury under the oregon constitution holding that aggravated assault was not a lesser included offense in prosecution for armed burglary attempted robbery and use of a firearm in the com mission of a felony because the allegation in the information that the accused carried a firearm was insufficient to charge the elements of aggravated assault holding evidence insufficient to support conviction of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used