DONALD HIGHSMITH, 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.
Donald Highsmith appealed his consecutive habitual offender sentences for drug possession convictions, arguing that Palmer v. State required such sentences to be served concurrently when offenses occurred during a single criminal episode. The court affirmed, holding that Palmer's rule applies only to minimum mandatory terms, and consecutive sentences are permissible when minimum mandatory sentencing is not involved.
The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences. Palmer's requirement of concurrent service applies only to multiple minimum mandatory terms imposed pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute; because no minimum mandatory terms were imposed here, Palmer does not apply, and courts may impose consecutive sentences even for offenses committed during a single criminal episode when minimum mandatory sentencing is not involved.
[1] Multiple minimum mandatory terms imposed pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute must be served concurrently if the offenses occurred during a single criminal episod…
[2] The rule requiring concurrent minimum mandatory terms for offenses during a single criminal episode does not apply when no minimum mandatory terms are imposed pursuant to…
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“The rule of Palmer requires that multiple minimum mandatory terms imposed pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute must be ordered to be served concurrently if the offenses for which the minimum mandatory terms are imposed occurred during a single criminal episode.”
Establishes the Palmer rule and its scope, limiting it to minimum mandatory terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHighsmith was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court sentenced him to two conse…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Donald Highsmith appeals sentences imposed upon him for convictions of possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court sentenced the appellant to two consecutive terms of 10 years each. These terms represent a sentencing enhancement pursuant to the provisions of the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1990). The appellant claims, based upon Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), that the trial court erred in ordering these habitual offender sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm.
The rule of Palmer requires that multiple minimum mandatory terms imposed pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute must be ordered to be served concurrently if the offenses for which the minimum mandatory terms are imposed occurred during a single criminal episode. There is no dispute that the appellant’s crimes occurred during a single criminal episode. It is also true that the appellant’s habitual offender sentences were imposed pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute — section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1990) — but, in this case, there were no minimum mandatory terms imposed pursuant to that sentence enhancement statute. Therefore, the rule in Palmer is not applicable here. Furthermore, where, as here, minimum mandatory sentencing is not involved, Palmer, itself, has never prohibited a sentencing court from imposing consecutive terms even if the offenses did occur during the same episode. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992), (citing State v. Boatwright, 559 So. 2d 210, 213 (Fla.1990), citing Palmer, 438 So. 2d at 4). Therefore, the trial court did not err in imposing the sentences as it did.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 617 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…parted from the statutory analysis contained in § 775.-021(4) in cases involving imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992); State v. Boat-wright, 559 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1990); Highsmith v. State, 595 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . A similar result was reached by the third district in McGahee v. State, 600 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and Mulkey v. State, 602 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).…
-
Sousa v. State, 868 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…So. 2d at 896, we reverse those parts of Sousa’s consecutive minimum mandatory sentences and remand to the trial court to impose concurrent minimum mandatory sentences. See Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Fla.1983); see also Highsmith v. State, 595 So. 2d 1072, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Sousa’s other points on appeal have no merit and his convictions and sentences are otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . We recognize that where the…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Boatwright, 559 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1990)