RICK LEFRED BELL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a sentence imposing consecutive minimum mandatory sentences within otherwise concurrent sentences for separate armed robberies.
Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences may be imposed within otherwise concurrent sentences when the offenses arise from separate and distinct criminal episodes.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences may be imposed within otherwise concurrent sentences when the offenses giving rise to the mandatory minimum terms arose from separ…
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 intelligenceRick Bell pleaded guilty to unrelated armed robberies and was sentenced to two concurrent twelve-year sentences, each with a three-year minimum mandat…
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 Plea Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, Judge.
Rick Bell appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion filed under Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Appellant entered a guilty plea to unrelated armed robberies. Pursuant to plea negotiation, the trial court sentenced appellant to two concurrent twelve year sentences, each with minimum mandatory three year sentences, and provided that the minimum mandatory three year sentences would be consecutive. The pronouncement of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences within otherwise concurrent sentences has been approved, so long as the offenses giving rise to the mandatory minimum terms arose from separate and distinct criminal episodes. Gladden v. State, 556 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Perez v. State, 524 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1056, 109 S.Ct. 1321, 103 L.Ed.2d 590 (1989). In a slightly different context, this court has held that a three year minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, may be imposed consecutively to a fourteen year term required for trafficking in cocaine, which term itself included a five year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 893.135(1), Florida Statutes. McDonald v. State, 564 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
As noted above, the present case involved a negotiated plea. We approve the reasoning of Gladden and Perez, and affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant contends that we overlooked the fact that his second mandatory sentence is to run consecutive to the entire sentence imposed in Case Number 89-14969 and is therefore an improper split or fragmented sentence. Appellant’s argument has no merit. As the state explained in its answer brief:
[T]he mandatory minimum terms did not violate the rule against split and fragmented sentences. The combined effect of the two sentences is as follows: Appellant serves the first three-year mandatory minimum term; appellant then proceeds immediately to serve the second three-year mandatory minimum term; and, appellant then serves the remainder of the two concurrent twelve-year terms. Appellant’s mandatory minimum terms are not split up or fragmented, but are to be served one after the other. We construe appellant’s sentences as stated above, and therefore deny appellant’s motion for rehearing.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…consecutively, in violation of what he asserted is this court’s precedent against a defendant serving fragmented or interrupted sentences. In denying this claim, the postconviction court cited to the First District Court’s opinion in Bell v. State, 597 So. 2d 861, 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the court held that “[t]he pronouncement of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences within otherwise concurrent sentences has been approved, so long as the offenses giving rise to the mandatory minimum terms arose…
Authorities Cited
- McDONALD v. State, 564 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Essie Andres Perez v. State, 524 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Gladden v. State, 556 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Hefner v. California, 489 U.S. 1056 (U.S. 1989)
- Cambridge v. Duckworth, 489 U.S. 1056 (U.S. 1989)