CHRISTOPHER BERNARD FERRELL, 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 mandatory minimum sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode must be imposed concurrently.
Appellant was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to mandatory minimum terms. The trial court ordered one sen…
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 Aggravated Assault With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises four issues: (1) whether three mandatory minimum sentences imposed for use of a firearm should all have been concurrent; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts; (3) whether admission of certain photographs of the crime scene constituted reversible error; and (4) whether the trial court erred in not sentencing appellant as a youthful offender. We conclude that only the first issue merits discussion.
Appellant was tried by a jury, and found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm in his possession. The trial court sentenced appellant on each count to three years in prison, subject to the 3-year mandatory minimum sentence required by section 775.087(2)(a)l., Florida Statutes (1991). The sentences on counts two and three are to run concurrently. However, the sentence on count one is to run consecutively to those on counts two and three.
Appellant asserts that the three aggravated assaults were all parts of a single criminal episode, arising out of a continuous temporal sequence at the same location. Therefore, he argues that the trial court was required to impose the three mandatory minimum sentences concurrently. We agree. See Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992); Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, while we affirm appellant’s convictions, we are constrained to reverse his sentence on count one, and to remand with directions that the sentence on that count be imposed to run concurrently with the sentences on counts two and three.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 642 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…tate, 466 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985); State v. Ames, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985); Wilson v. State, 467 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1985); Young v. State, 631 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Weatherspoon v. State, 624 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Ferrell v. State, 610 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Gardner v. State, 515 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Appellant need not be present at resentencing. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. KAHN, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK,…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)