RICKY S. HUNNICUTT, 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.
Appellant's convictions for burglary with assault, aggravated assault, and sexual battery were affirmed, but his consecutive minimum mandatory sentences were reversed and remanded because all offenses arose from a single criminal episode.
Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode must be modified to run concurrently with the first minimum mandatory term.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode must be modified to run concurrently with the first minimum mandatory…
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 intelligenceRicky S. Hunnicutt was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with assault and battery, aggravated assault, and three counts of sexual battery. He receiv…
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 Consecutive Mandatory Minimum Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Ricky S. Hunnicutt, was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with assault and battery, aggravated assault and three counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences for the burglary and three sexual battery counts. Each of those sentences included a fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence consecutive with the others. Appellant was sentenced to ten years on the aggravated assault charge with a consecutive five-year minimum mandatory sentence.
While appellant raises several issues relating to his convictions, we find none to be of sufficient merit to warrant reversal or further comment. Appellant concedes that his argument relating to the findings necessary to sentence him as a habitual violent felony offender has been decided adversely to his position in State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993). Appellant also challenges the consecutive minimum mandatory sentences as being improper because all of the offenses for which he was sentenced arose out of a single criminal episode. We agree. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992). We, therefore, reverse appellant’s sentences insofar as the minimum mandatory sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other, and remand with directions that four of those minimum mandatory sentences be made to run concurrently with the first of the fifteen-year minimum mandatory terms.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunnicutt v. State, 766 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ntences arise from one criminal episode. Accordingly, this court reversed that aspect of Mr. Hunnicutt’s sentences and remanded his case with instructions to the trial court to impose the minimum mandatory terms concurrently. See Hunnicutt v. State, 622 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Mr. Hunnicutt now argues that the habitual violent offender sentences themselves may not also be imposed consecutively. We agree. Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions emanating from one criminal episode may not b…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)