HENRY CHARLES ROSS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that kidnapping and robbery charges arising from separate incidents against the same victim satisfy the requirement for consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under section 775.087(2), answering a certified question of great public importance regarding the interpretation of 'separate incidents occurring at separate times and places.'
The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the kidnapping and subsequent robbery were sufficiently separate incidents to justify imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for those two crimes, consistent with the reasoning in Murray v. State.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences may be imposed for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places.
[2] Kidnapping and subsequent robbery of the same victim may be considered sufficiently separate incidents to justify consecutive mandatory minimum sentences.
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“WHETHER THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE THREE-YEAR MINIMUM TERMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.087(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, WERE "OFFENSES [WHICH AROSE] FROM SEPARATE INCIDENTS OCCURRING AT SEPARATE TIMES AND PLACES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN PALMER V. STATE, 438 So.2d 1 (FLA.1983).”
The certified question of great public importance that the Supreme Court was asked to answer regarding consecutive mandatory minimum sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoss and his co-defendant Murray were charged with five offenses against the same victim: kidnapping, two sexual batteries, robbery, and attempted fir…
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 Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
We have for our review Ross v. State, 463 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), wherein the district court certified the following question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE THREE-YEAR MINIMUM TERMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.087(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, WERE “OFFENSES [WHICH AROSE] FROM SEPARATE INCIDENTS OCCURRING AT SEPARATE TIMES AND PLACES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN PALMER V. STATE, 438 So. 2d 1 (FLA.1983).
We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the affirmative.
A full recitation of the facts of this cause appears in our opinion reported as Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1986). Ross, the petitioner herein, and his co-defendant Murray were tried separately, but were both charged by information with five offenses against the same victim: Count I, kidnapping; Count II and Count III, sexual batteries; Count IV, robbery; and Count V, attempted first-degree murder. Petitioner was found guilty as charged on Counts I through IV and guilty of attempted second-degree murder on Count V. Each count charged that petitioner and Murray had possession of a firearm during the commission of these felonies. Petitioner was sentenced to one hundred years imprisonment on each of the first four counts and fifteen years on Count V. Three year mandatory minimum sentences were imposed on Counts I through IV, as those crimes involved use of a firearm, section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1983). The sentences on all counts were to run consecutively. On appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum sentences for the two sexual batteries and consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for the robbery and kidnapping. The court affirmed the judgments and sentences in all other respects. On rehearing, the district court certified the question now before us.
The answer to this question was set forth in Murray, wherein we reasoned that imposition of two consecutive sentences was proper as the sexual battery occurred in one place and constituted one invasion of the victim while the robberies occurred in other places and were a “separate and additional violation of the victim’s most basic rights.” At 1124. Sub judice, we agree with the district court that the original kidnapping and subsequent robbery were sufficiently separate to justify imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for those two crimes.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court below.*
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur. *
Petitioner raises two additional issues which we find meritless.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dewayne Jermaine Pinacle v. State, 625 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…e disagree. The trial court appropriately entered consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for armed burglary and armed sexual battery since the crimes were distinct in their elements and occurred at different times and locations. See Ross v. State, 493 So. 2d 1015 [*1275] (Fla.1986); Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1986). We do not need to address the defendant’s remaining contention since the sentence imposed by the trial court is permissible under the guidelines. Based upon the foregoing arguments, w…
-
Waters v. State, 669 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…t from the holding that Appellant’s consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper. The offenses committed were sufficiently separate in nature, time, and place to justify application of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Ross v. State, 493 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1986); Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1986); Parker v. State, 633 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1994).…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1986)
- Ross v. State, 463 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)