RANDEL JOSHUA WARD, 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 sentence imposed did not constitute a departure from the guidelines without sufficient written reason, and the sentencing order was permissible.
Appellant received various sentences for multiple counts, including a habitual violent felony offender sentence and guideline sentences. The trial cou…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant raises three issues on appeal, none of which have merit, and only one of which will be discussed herein: Whether the sentence imposed upon the defendant constituted a departure from the guidelines without sufficient written reason. We find it did not. See Gipson v. State, 616 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1993).
As to count II, appellant received a habitual violent felony offender sentence of life with a three-year-mandatory-minimum, and 15 years without possibility of parole. On counts I and III, he received guideline life sentences with three-year-mandatory-minimums to run concurrently with count II. The sentences in counts I and III would be subsumed by the more stringent habitual offender sentence of count II. As to counts IV and V, appellant received guideline life sentences with three-year-mandatory-minimums, each of these sentences to ran concurrently.
The trial court then ordered that counts IV and V (the guidelines sentence) run consecutively to count II (the habitual violent offender sentence), a procedure allowed pursuant to Gipson, supra. The trial court also ordered that all the mandatory-minimums and enhancements be served concurrently. Thus, there is no violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, affirm.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernadette Eaddy v. State, 660 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…Gipson, the court approved the imposition of a maximum guideline sentence consecutive to a habitual offender sentence. Here, concurrent habitual offender sentences were imposed to run consecutive to concurrent life sentences. See also Ward v. State, 651 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The life sentences were within the sentencing guidelines and were imposed on two unrelated attempted murder convictions that were charged in separate and distinct infor-mations. The life sentences were not enhanced by virtue o…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Gipson v. State, 616 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1993)