WILLIAM JOSEPH PENTON, 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.
William Joseph Penton appeals his convictions for multiple offenses including attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer and aggravated battery. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but vacated portions of his sentences, finding the trial court lacked discretion to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first-degree felonies arising from a single criminal episode.
The trial court lacked discretion to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for the attempted aggravated battery and aggravated battery convictions because both crimes arose from a single criminal episode involving a single victim. The minimum mandatory sentence for aggravated battery must be imposed concurrently with the minimum mandatory sentence for attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer.
[1] A trial court lacks discretion to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode when those sentences are imposed unde…
[2] A trial court's determination that a defendant qualifies as a habitual violent felony offender will be affirmed if supported by the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial judge did not have the discretion under sections 775.-021(4) and 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first degree felonies committed by an habitual violent felony offender arising from a single criminal episode, since the minimum mandatory sentences were imposed under section 775.084 and not the statute which prescribes the penalty for the offenses.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts lack discretion to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePenton was convicted by jury of attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer, aggravated battery, resisting arrest with violence, resisti…
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 Fleeing Or Attempting To Elude A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, Judge.
William Joseph Penton appeals after a jury verdict finding him guilty of attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer, aggravated battery, resisting arrest with violence, resisting arrest without violence, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and operating a motor vehicle in violation of a driver’s license restriction. The trial court sentenced Penton as an habitual violent felony offender. We affirm Penton’s convictions without comment, but find it necessary to address his contentions concerning the sentences.
Penton argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive minimum mandatory habitual violent felony offender sentences for attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer and aggravated battery. The record indicates that these crimes occurred on a single victim during a single criminal episode. The trial judge did not have the discretion under sections 775.-021(4) and 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first degree felonies committed by an habitual violent felony offender arising from a single criminal episode, since the minimum mandatory sentences were imposed under section 775.084 and not the statute which prescribes the penalty for the offenses. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952, 953-954 (Fla.1992). Consequently, we vacate the minimum mandatory portions of Penton’s sentences for attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer and aggravated battery and remand with directions that the minimum mandatory sentence for aggravated battery be imposed concurrently with the minimum mandatory sentence for attempted aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm the trial court’s determination that Penton was an habitual violent felon. Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1992). However, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:
DOES SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND EX POST FACTO?
See Funchess v. State, 597 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), pet. for rev. pending, No. 79,963; Reeves v. State, 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), pet. for rev. pending, No. 79,386; Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), pet. for rev. pending, No. 78,715.
Convictions AFFIRMED, sentences partially VACATED, and REMANDED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 615 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…consecutive mandatory minimums for possession of a firearm or as a result of habitualization where the crimes for which a defendant is being sentenced arise out of a single criminal episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); Penton v. State, 605 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Where two separate [*199] and distinct criminal offenses have occurred, imposition of consecutive mandatory mínimums is justified. State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986); Newton v. State, 603 So. 2d' 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…
-
Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 190 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2016)…eged information be redacted. Id. The defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the district court, which was granted. Id. The district court noted that it'had previously held in Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weike & Gent v. Kapner, 605 So. 2d 1319, 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), that billing records of opposing counsel were not discoverable if they contained privileged or irrelevant information, and the Second District in Hillman held that the billing records of an attorney are generally protected…
-
Balande Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…We have previously held that discovery of the billing records of the opposing party’s attorney are not discoverable if such records contain privileged material or are otherwise irrelevant. Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weihe & Gent v. Kapner, 605 So. 2d 1319, 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Heinrich, we granted cer-tiorari and quashed an order that permitted irrelevant discovery of an attorney’s billing records for other clients in unrelated cases. Id. In Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1992)
- Leshawn Tillman v. State, 586 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Reeves v. State, 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Unisys Fin. Corp. v. AMP Servs., Inc., 593 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Michael André Funchess v. State, 597 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)