CHARLES CHEATHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first-degree murder and habitual violent felony offender status are permissible when the statutory provisions address separate and distinct evils—killing and recidivism.
Consecutive minimum mandatory terms of twenty-five years for first-degree murder and fifteen years for habitual violent felony offender status are permissible because the statutes address separate and distinct evils.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first-degree murder and habitual violent felony offender status are permissible when the underlying statutes address separate…
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 intelligenceCheatham was convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary of an occupied conveyance, and armed robbery committed as part of the same transaction.…
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 Recidivism cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Cheatham was convicted of first degree murder, armed burglary of an occupied conveyance and armed robbery. Because the crimes were all part of the same transaction, he claims that he was erroneously sentenced to consecutive, rather than concurrent, minimum mandatory terms of twenty-five years of a life sentence for the murder charge and fifteen years as a habitual violent felony offender on the armed burglary and armed robbery convictions. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), pet. for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 8, 1994) (No. 94-5612); McGouirk v. State, 493 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1986); Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). We disagree.
In our view, the consecutive minimum mandatory terms were permissible under Downs v. State, 616 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1993) because the statutory provisions in question address “separate and distinct evils.” Downs, 616 So. 2d at 446 — that is, “killing someone,” 616 So. 2d at 446, as to the murder conviction, and recidivism, see Hicks v. State, 595 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), as to the defendant’s status as a habitual offender. See Downs, 616 So. 2d at 444 (consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first degree murder and using a firearm in the commission of aggravated assault permissible); Bonaventure v. State, 637 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for first degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon permissible).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Downs v. State, 616 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1993)
- McGOUIRK v. State, 493 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1986)
- Hicks v. State, 595 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Bonaventure v. State, 637 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)