ELBERT ROY SMITH, 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.
Elbert Roy Smith appeals consecutive mandatory minimum sentences imposed for multiple crimes committed in a single criminal episode, arguing that Palmer v. State prohibits consecutive mandatory minimums when crimes arise from one episode. The court affirms, finding that Smith's crimes occurred at separate times and places and thus Palmer does not preclude consecutive sentences.
The court affirms the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences because each crime was separate, occurring at distinct time intervals and different places. Palmer does not apply because it specifically preserved the authority to impose consecutive mandatory minimums for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences may be imposed for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places.
[2] Appellate courts may reconsider prior rulings only in exceptional circumstances where reliance on the prior opinion would result in manifest injustice.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“While Palmer did reverse the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in that case because the separate robbery victims were all robbed at the same time and place, the court specifically observed that it was not prohibiting consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places.”
Establishes that Palmer permits consecutive mandatory minimums when crimes occur at separate times and places, distinguishing the instant case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was remanded for a new trial due to jury selection error and subsequently pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery while armed, one count of …
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 Consecutive Mandatory Minimum Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the sentences imposed,1 contending that because only one criminal episode was involved, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for three of the five crimes charged, relying on Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). See also State v. Ames, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla.1985). We find no error and affirm.
Following the remand of this case for a new trial2 because of prejudicial error in the selection of the jury, Smith pled guilty to two separate charges of sexual battery while armed, one charge of burglary of a dwelling while armed, one charge of robbery with a firearm, and one charge of shooting into a dwelling. The court imposed separate and concurrent sentences for the sexual battery charges applying to each the mandatory minimum provision of section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes because of the firearm; consecutive sentences for the armed burglary and armed robbery charges (with consecutive mandatory minimum terms for each) and a concurrent sentence on the charge of shooting into an occupied dwelling.
Appellant raised the identical point in the prior appeal where the same issue had been presented. There we said:
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for each of the crimes for which defendant was convicted because the multiple offenses arose out of a single episode. He relies on Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983) as support for that position. While Palmer did reverse the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in that case because the separate robbery victims were all robbed at the same time and place, the court specifically observed that it was not prohibiting consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places. 438 So. 2d at 4. Here, each crime was separate, occurring after a distinct time interval. Each sexual battery occurred at a different place. The intent to commit the robbery does not appear to have been formed until long after the sexual batteries took place. The shooting of the dog, however, does appear to be the direct continuation of the burglary, committed as soon as defendant entered the premises, so under Palmer, it would be error to impose mandatory minimum sentences for both of these crimes. Otherwise, we find no error in the imposition of the sentences.
463 So. 2d at 546.
This point has already been decided adversely to appellant’s position. Although appellate courts do have the power to reconsider and correct erroneous rulings, Strazzula v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965), this reconsideration is warranted only in exceptional circumstances and where reliance on the prior opinion would result in manifest injustice. Preston v. State, 444 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1984). No such showing is made here. Our previous decision correctly decided this issue and the trial judge followed it in resentencing the appellant.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . The crimes were committed prior to the adoption of the sentencing guidelines, and the record reflects that defendant specifically declined to be sentenced under the guidelines.
. Smith v. State, 463 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1986)…a separate and additional violation of the victim’s most basic rights. The nature of these crimes and the manner of their commission justified the Fourth District’s holding in this regard. State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 487 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); James v. State, 462 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Finally, Murray contends that the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over parole must be vacated in light of the trial court’s failure to “state the justification [therefo…
-
Lifred v. State, 643 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…nt panel of this court in Rahming II found that portion of codefendant Rahming’s sentence imposing a consecutive mandatory minimum term to be unlawful, the circumstances here are particularly compelling for a [*96] second review. See Smith v. State, 487 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We start with the proposition that pursuant to section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1989), a trial court has discretion to impose separate sentences, either concurrently or consecutively, for each separate criminal offense ari…
-
Chenard v. State, 510 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…rom those in which an “escalating course of criminal conduct” — that is, a pattern of crimes of increasing severity — is involved. See Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987); Newland v. State, 508 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Smith v. State, 487 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).2 3. As the state concedes, the trial judge’s finding that the defendant’s crime involved an unfactored pattern of “violence” is belied both by the fact that the charge that the defendant was criminally responsible for an assaul…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Preston v. State, 444 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1984)
- THE Florida BAR v. Napier, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Ames, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985)
- Elbert Roy Smith v. State, 463 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)