CHARLES EDWARD LONGLEY, 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 appellate court affirmed Charles Longley's robbery conviction but reversed his sentence. The court held that stacking consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for habitual violent felony offender status and firearm use in a single episode of armed robbery was improper.
No, the trial court erred. The court held that minimum mandatory portions of sentences for crimes arising out of a single episode must be served concurrently, not consecutively.
[1] Minimum mandatory portions of sentences for crimes arising out of a single criminal episode must be served concurrently, not consecutively.
[2] A trial court errs by ordering consecutive minimum mandatory terms for separate sentencing enhancements applied to a single criminal charge arising from a single 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“We find that similar reasoning controls the instant case, which involved only one sentence for one criminal charge arising out of a single criminal episode.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for applying precedent to the current case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Longley was convicted of robbery with a firearm. During sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive minimum mandatory terms for habitual v…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Chief Judge.
Charles Longley was convicted by a jury of one count of robbery with a firearm.1 We affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence imposed for the reasons hereinafter discussed.
During sentencing, the trial court found that Longley was a habitual violent felony offender2 and imposed a minimum mandatory term of 15 years. The trial court then imposed a consecutive 3 year minimum mandatory term for Longley’s use of a firearm while committing the robbery.3 On appeal, Longley argues that the trial court erred by stacking the two minimum mandatory portions of his sentence for committing only a single episode of armed robbery. However, the State contends that even though Longley committed only a single episode of armed robbery, the trial court properly stacked the two minimum mandatory terms within a single sentence because the two sentencing enhancement statutes address separate and distinct wrongs.
In Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992), the Florida Supreme Court addressed a situation that involved three criminal charges arising out of a single criminal episode. The court held that the trial court must order the defendant to serve concurrently, and not consecutively, the minimum mandatory portions of the sentences for crimes that arose out of a single episode. Id. at 954. See also Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); McCormick v. State, 494 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 503 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1987). We find that similar reasoning controls the instant case, which involved only one sentence for one criminal charge arising out of a single criminal episode. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred by ordering Longley to serve consecutively, rather than concurrently, the two minimum mandatory portions of his sentence.
Conviction AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.
COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . §§ 775.087(2)(a), 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. § 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1991).
.§ 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1995)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Jackson v. State, 641 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), based upon direct and express conflict with Davis v. State, 630 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Longley v. State, 614 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. Petitioner contends that our decision in Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992), mandates that his three-year minimum mandatory sentence term und…1 / 2
-
Davis v. State, 630 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…three-year minimum mandatory sentence for possession of a firearm consecutively to his fifteen-year mandatory sentence as a habitual violent felony offender as that same sentencing scheme for the same offenses was held erroneous in Longley v. State, 614 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We agree and reverse. In Longley, the Fifth District held that reasoning similar to that in Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992), controlled its disposition of the appeal of Longley’s sentence. Daniels was sentenced as…
-
Kenon v. State, 780 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ly or consecutively. Because the two minimum mandatory sentences are enhancements and arise out of the same criminal offense, they must be served concurrently to each life sentence. See Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1995); Longley v. State, 614 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (holding, based upon Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992), that for crimes arising out of a single criminal episode, minimum mandatory sentences must run concurrently rather than consecutively). Thus, the judg [*261] ment…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Carlton J. Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- McCORMICK v. State, 494 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)