DANIEL MAXWELL, 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.
Daniel Maxwell appealed his convictions for carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirmed the conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun but reversed the other two convictions because all three offenses arose from a single episode of possession, violating the prohibition against multiple convictions for the same act.
A defendant cannot be convicted of and sentenced for multiple firearm offenses when all arise from a single criminal episode involving the same act of possession. The conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun is affirmed, but the convictions for carrying a concealed firearm and possession by a convicted felon are reversed. The equal protection claim is not reached because the defendant lacks standing as a white defendant to assert an equal protection violation.
[1] A defendant may not be convicted and sentenced for multiple firearm offenses arising from a single criminal episode and involving the same act of possession.
[2] A defendant lacks standing to assert an equal protection claim regarding the application of a statute if the defendant is not a member of the group allegedly subjected to…
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“a defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for two crimes involving a firearm that arose out of the same criminal episode”
Establishes the core principle that multiple firearm convictions from a single episode violate sentencing rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaxwell was charged with and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and possession of a firearm by a convi…
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 Possession Of A Short-Barreled Shotgun cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises three issues: (1) whether he could be convicted of, and sentenced for, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a short-barreled shotgun and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon when all arose out of a single episode and all involved the same act of possession; (2) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction for carrying a concealed firearm; and (3) whether the habitual offender statute is unconstitutional as applied because it violates the right of black defendants to equal protection of the laws. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We agree that appellant may not be convicted of, and sentenced for, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a short-barreled shotgun and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because all three offenses arose out of a single episode and all involved the same act of possession. M.P.C. v. State, 659 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); A.J.H. v. State, 652 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). See State v. Steams, 645 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla.1994) (interpreting State v. Brown, 633 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1994), as standing for proposition that “a defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for two crimes involving a firearm that arose out of the same criminal episode”). Accordingly, while we affirm the conviction and sentence for possession of a short-barreled shotgun, we reverse the other two convictions and sentences, and remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended judgment and sentence reflecting conviction of possession of a short-barreled shotgun only. Our resolution of this issue renders moot appellant’s second issue.
By his third issue, appellant asserts that the habitual offender statute is unconstitutional as applied, because black defendants are sentenced pursuant to its provisions some three times more often than are white defendants in the Second Judicial Circuit. However, appellant lacks standing to assert this equal protection claim, because he is white. Therefore, we do not reach the merits.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ, concur. BOOTH, J., specially concurs with written opinion.
BOOTH, J.,
specially concurring.
I reluctantly concur under the eases cited in the majority opinion. However, as comprehensively addressed in Brown v. State, case no. 95-669, — So. 2d - (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 18, 1995), I question why we cannot affirm all three of Maxwell’s firearm convictions and sentences, as each of the underlying offenses contain unique statutory elements distinct from the others.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Galloway v. State, 680 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…stances in which a firearm is an element of companion offenses, each otherwise containing an element or elements not contained in the other. We note conflict on this point with Bell v. State, 673 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Maxwell v. State, 666 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, No. 87,290, 673 So. 2d 30 (Fla. Apr. 11,1996). [*617] We also affirm as to an evidentiary issue raised, regarding whether certain testimony falls under the hearsay rule, without addressing it, as its admission, if error…
-
State v. Maxwell, 682 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1996)…HARDING, Justice. We have for review Maxwell v. State, 666 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1st DCA 1996), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in M.P. v. State, 662 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.3d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction pursuant to arti- [*84] ele Y, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Daniel K. Maxwell was…
-
Montgomery v. State, 704 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…isode as Counts I-VI, and, like the other counts, involved a firearm. [*550] Following a hearing, the lower court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss Count VII, citing Brown v. State, 670 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Maxwell v. State, 666 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We address first the two issues raised by-Montgomery in his appeal. First, Montgomery asserts the court erred in reclassifying the conviction of aggravated battery from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony. We agree…
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
- State v. Brown, 633 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1994)
- City OF Sarasota v. Mikos, 645 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Stearns, 645 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1994)
- Pedersen v. State, 652 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- M.P.C. v. State, 659 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)