CALVIN 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.
The court held that the record was unclear as to whether the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences was illegal.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, arguing he received illegal consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for two counts. The sentencing forms indic…
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
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant, Calvin Smith, appeals, pro se, the denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, without an evidentiary hearing. Smith’s motion for postconviction relief was based upon the ground that the court illegally sentenced him to consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for two counts contained in case number 81-4073.
The sentences imposed in that case were consecutive five-year terms for each of two counts. On sentencing forms, it is indicated that the three-year minimum provision of section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, was to be imposed for both counts. The forms indicate that the sentences are to run consecutive to one another. It is unclear from the sentencing forms, however, whether the court intended for the three-year minimum mandatory sentences to run consecutive to one another or whether they were intended to run concurrent. It is also unclear whether the convictions in case number 81-4073 involved instances arising from the same criminal offense. The transcript of the sentencing hearing which was attached to the trial court’s order does not clarify these questions.
It appears that the appellant may have been given two consecutive minimum mandatory sentences in violation of the dictates of Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), which holds that the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences arising out of the same criminal offense is illegal.
We are unable to determine from the record whether the minimum mandatory sentences imposed were illegal under Palmer. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 602 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…pporting its conclusion that the sentence imposed was legal. On appeal this court reversed, directing the circuit court to either attach additional portions of the record which refute Smith’s claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing. Smith v. State, 589 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). On remand, the circuit court entered an order which again attached a copy of the transcript of the April 15, 1982, sentencing hearing, commenting that the transcript “answers the questions of the 1st District Court of Appeal an…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)