CRAIG LAMAR STATEN, 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 consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under the habitual violent felony offender statute and the firearm statute were improperly imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode.
Craig Staten was convicted of two counts of robbery with a firearm and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to consecutive life sentences w…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Craig Staten appeals his judgment and sentences for two counts of robbery with a firearm. After a jury found Staten guilty, the trial court sentenced him as a habitual violent felony offender to two consecutive life sentences with two minimum mandatory terms of fifteen years. The trial court also imposed two consecutive three-year minimum mandatory terms in accordance with the firearm statute.1 We affirm the convictions and the consecutive life sentences, but we reverse the consecutive minimum mandatory terms and remand to the trial court with directions to correct the sentencing errors.
First, we conclude that the trial court erred in imposing under the habitual violent felony offender statute2 two consecutive fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentences for the armed robbery of two victims during a single criminal episode. One fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence must run concurrently with the second. See Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992); Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Second, we conclude that even though there were two victims involved, it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive minimum mandatory terms for the use of a firearm during a single criminal episode which occurred without interruption in time and location. Under these circumstances, the three-year minimum mandatory sentences must run concurrently. See Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
We affirm the convictions. We reverse the sentences in part and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to correct the sentences to reflect that the minimum mandatory sentences run concurrently.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur. . § 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
. § 775.084(4)(b)l., Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 618 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…mstances quoted above. Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla.1983). Even if two victims are involved, minimum mandatory sentences must be imposed concurrently, so long as the offenses were committed during a single criminal episode. Staten v. State, 600 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA1992). Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are permissible where separate and distinct criminal offenses have occurred. Woods v. State, 615 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Newton v. State, 603 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (affirmin…
-
Denson v. State, 633 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…o. 2d 1016 (Fla.1986). We agree. Minimum mandatory sentences must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively when the convictions do not arise from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places. McGouirk. See also Staten v. State, 600 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In the instant case, the aggravated assault and armed robbery charges were part of a single criminal episode and, therefore, the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences was improper. We, accordingly, reverse and r…
-
Sanchez v. State, 12 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…a prison releasee reoffender to consecutive terms of imprisonment. Although there were two victims involved, the defendant’s crimes arose from a single criminal episode as they occurred without interruption in time or location. See Staten v. State, 600 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that even though there were two victims, a single criminal episode occurred because there was not an interruption in time and place); Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318, 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“notwithstanding the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Carlton J. Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)