CURIAM. Affirmed, without prejudice to file a timely and sufficient postconviction motion. The trial court did not rely on Mr. Vazquez’s pending charges in imposing his sentence. Cf. Fernandez v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D 502a, 212 So.3d 494, 2017 WL 788407 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 1, 2017) (<HOLDING>). NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and LaROSE, JJ.,
holding that district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing life sentence based on review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing taken together with the courts closing remarks holding that the trial court improperly relied on a subsequent charge in sentencing where the trial court stated she was imposing the sentence based on the fact that you reoffended among other reasons holding that trial court erred in rendering takenothing judgment notwithstanding jurys verdict in favor of plaintiff based on defendants properly preserved charge error and concluding that proper remedy was for trial  court to grant new trial based on the charge error holding that in order to aid the appellate review of whether an abuse of discretion has occurred at sentencing the trial court is required to articulate on the record reasons for imposing a particular sentence holding that the trial court properly considered the defendants subsequent arrests for two other robberies while on bond when sentencing the defendant