ANDRE HARRIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court reversed and remanded a defendant's sentence for attempted armed robbery because the trial court improperly imposed a life sentence with a 25-year minimum mandatory under Florida's 10-20-Life Statute. The court found the trial court lacked the authority to impose a sentence beyond the mandatory minimum without additional statutory basis.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence with a 25-year minimum mandatory for attempted armed robbery, as the court exhausted its discretion upon ordering the minimum mandatory sentence and lacked further statutory authority to impose the life sentence.
[1] Under the 10-20-Life Statute, once a trial court imposes a minimum mandatory sentence, it exhausts its discretion and lacks authority to impose any additional sentence un…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“In Hatten the Court explained that once a trial court orders a minimum mandatory sentence under the 10-20-Life Statute, it exhausts its discretion and must have additional authority to impose any additional sentence.”
This quote explains the legal principle regarding the limits of a trial court's sentencing discretion under the 10-20-Life Statute, which is central to the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe jury found the appellant guilty of first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery with a firearm, including findings that a firearm was possessed…
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 10-20-Life Statute (Fla. Stat. § 775.087) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his direct criminal appeal, Appellant raises three issues of trial court error. We reject his arguments on the first two issues without comment, but we reverse and remand for resentencing on his third issue and the State’s concession of error. The jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder in count I and attempted armed robbery with a firearm in count II. The jury also found as to both counts that during the commission of the crime Appellant actually possessed a firearm, discharged the firearm, and the discharge of the firearm caused a death. The trial court sentenced Appellant under section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2015), otherwise known as the 10-20-Life Statute. The court sentenced Appellant to “life in prison without
parole” for the murder and “life in prison on the attempted robbery and with a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence.” Appellant challenges only the sentence on the attempted armed robbery. As the Florida Supreme Court has held, the sentence imposed was error. See Hatten v. State, 203 So. 3d 142, 145–46 (Fla. 2016).
In Hatten the Court explained that once a trial court orders a minimum mandatory sentence under the 10-20-Life Statute, it exhausts its discretion and must have additional authority to impose any additional sentence. Id. at 146.
Following the rule announced in Hatten, we reversed a sentence structured identically to Appellant’s sentence. See Byrd v. State, 238 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reversing sentence where court imposed, under 10-20-Life Statute, life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum mandatory; the life sentence was not minimum mandatory and no additional statutory authority existed to go beyond the 25-year minimum mandatory, 10-20-Life sentence).
Applying Hatten and Byrd here, once the trial court imposed its 25-year minimum mandatory, it needed additional authority to impose the life sentence. None appears to exist, and the State has conceded error on this point. We therefore accept the State’s concession on the sentencing issue, and REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing only on count II consistent with Hatten. We otherwise AFFIRM Appellant’s judgment and sentences. BILBREY, JAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________