GREG PARRISH, 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.
Greg Parrish appealed his convictions for false imprisonment, armed robbery, and trespass. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the trial court's imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences on the armed robbery counts, and upon motion for clarification, further clarified that no consecutive mandatory minimum sentences could be imposed for any of the offenses as they arose from a single criminal episode.
The court held that it was error to stack the minimum mandatory sentences for the two armed robbery counts because they required proof of identical elements. Upon clarification, the court further held that consecutive mandatory minimum sentences cannot be imposed for first-degree felonies committed by an habitual violent felony offender arising from a single criminal episode.
[1] A trial court errs by stacking minimum mandatory sentences for offenses requiring proof of identical elements.
[2] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences cannot be imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode.
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“It was error for the trial court to "stack" the minimum mandatory sentences for the two armed robbery counts, both requiring proof of identical elements.”
Establishes the core holding that consecutive mandatory minimum sentences cannot be imposed for offenses with identical elements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of five counts of false imprisonment, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of trespass. At sentencing, the trial court d…
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 Single Criminal Episode Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
[*81] PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of five (5) counts of false imprisonment, two (2) counts of armed robbery, and one (1) count of trespass. We affirm appellant’s convictions as to all points on appeal, but reverse the trial courts imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences on the armed robbery counts.
During the sentencing phase of appellant’s trial, the court declared appellant to be an habitual violent felony offender in accordance with the provisions of § 775.-084(4), Florida Statutes (1989). Appellant was sentenced to five (5) concurrent thirty (30) year terms on the false imprisonment counts, two (2) consecutive forty (40) year terms on the armed robbery counts to run consecutively to the false imprisonment sentences, and one year in county jail on the trespass count. The trial court imposed a minimum mandatory sentence of forty (40) years: ten (10) years on the concurrent false imprisonment counts and fifteen (15) years on each of the consecutive armed robbery counts.
It was error for the trial court to “stack” the minimum mandatory sentences for the two armed robbery counts, both requiring proof of identical elements. Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); § 775.-021(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). We reject the state’s argument that because the two armed robbery counts involved separate victims, consecutive minimum mandatory sentences could be imposed on these counts. See Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING.
STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant appellant’s motion for clarification. In Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992), issued after our opinion in the instant case and provided as supplemental authority by both parties to this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held that a trial judge does not have the discretion under sections 775.021(4) and 775.084, Florida Statutes (1988), to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first-degree felonies committed by an habitual violent felony offender arising from a single criminal episode. Daniels, 595 So. 2d at 953. Pursuant to Daniels, upon remand for re-sentencing, the trial court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for appellant’s false imprisonment convictions and armed robbery convictions, as they arose from a single criminal episode.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). This procedure was not followed in this case. We, therefore, strike the costs imposed on Sutton. On remand, the state may seek to reimpose these costs consistent with the law expressed in this opinion. Williams; Wray v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). [*1034] Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . The record does not reflect why the assessment for the drug education fund was omitted from the probation order. . See, e.g.,…
-
Martin v. State, 640 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ce of imprisonment. We affirm these convictions and sentences. The trial court also imposed $240 in court costs as a special condition of probation. The record does not reflect the authority for imposing such costs in this case. See Wray v. State, 596 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Brown v. State, 506 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 515 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1987). Therefore, these costs are stricken without prejudice to the state to seek reim-position with citation of proper statutory authority. Affi…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Clem Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)