THOMAS SUFFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas Suffield appealed his sentence, and although his four raised points did not warrant reversal, the appellate court identified a fundamental sentencing error: the trial court improperly imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for multiple offenses arising from a single criminal episode, contrary to Palmer v. State (decided after sentencing).
Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were incorrectly imposed and must be vacated. The offenses all occurred within one location in quick succession (less than half an hour) as part of one criminal episode, bringing this case within Palmer's prohibition against consecutive mandatory minimums for single-episode offenses.
[1] Fundamental error, such as the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in light of subsequent controlling precedent, may be considered initially by an appel…
[2] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences cannot be imposed when offenses arise from a single criminal episode.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We can consider such error here initially because it is fundamental.”
Justifies the court's consideration of a sentencing issue not raised by appellant in his brief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of burglary, robbery, attempted robbery, and aggravated assault. All offenses occurred within one trailer in a single incident…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Appellant raised four points in his brief, none of which warrants discussion or reversal. At oral argument, however, this writer inquired of defense counsel why the question had never been raised in this court as to the propriety of the trial court’s imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in light of Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), which was decided after the trial court imposed sentence upon this defendant. We can consider such error here initially because it is fundamental. See Pettis v. State, 448 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Pugh v. State, 423 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), dismissed, 426 So. 2d 28 (Fla.1982).
This court has interpreted Palmer in Pettis, which involved an aggravated assault upon one person and an assault on another by the same defendant in one same setting, and in Whitehead v. State, 446 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In Whitehead, we were faced with consecutive mandatory minimums imposed upon convictions for robbery with a firearm of a store manager and aggravated assault on another person in the store. In both cases we held that only one criminal episode was involved, and that consecutive mandatory minimums could not be imposed.
A different but consistent result was reached in Wilson v. State, 449 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), a case involving sentences for kidnapping and rape. The first district opined that because the victim had been abducted, transported elsewhere, and then raped, the offenses arose from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places. Palmer, it said, was therefore distinguishable and did not proscribe consecutive mandatory minimums.
In the instant case, there were mandatory minimums assessed for burglary, robbery, and attempted robbery, and the parties claim that one was imposed for aggravated assault, although this is not indicated on the sentencing sheet. The sentences for burglary and attempted robbery were to run together, and consecutive to them were to run the robbery and aggravated assault sentences, concurrently. The convictions arose from an incident in which appellant gained entry to a trailer (burglary), accosted several people (aggravated assault), demanded valuables (attempted robbery), then entered a bedroom and robbed another person (robbery). These circumstances are more closely aligned with those encountered in Pettis and Whitehead than with the Wilson fact pattern. The offenses all occurred within one trailer in very close time sequence, less than one-half hour, as admitted by the state. The case therefore comes under Palmer’s holding, and consecutive mandatory mínimums were incorrectly entered by the trial court, who could not know that Palmer was forthcoming. We vacate the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and remand for correction of the sentences. Appellant need not be present.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Napoleon Dowdell v. State, 500 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ot constitute an abuse of the procedure governed by the rules. The impermissible stacking of mandatory minimum sentences renders a sentence illegal and this fundamental error is subject to collateral attack by a Rule 3.850 motion. Suffield v. State, 456 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and Pettis v. State, 448 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We recognize that Aikens conflicts with Bass v. State, 478 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review granted, Case No. 68,230 (Fla.). We recede from Bass and in accordance wi…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Whitehead v. State, 446 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Wilson v. State, 449 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Pettis v. State, 448 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Pugh v. State, 423 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)