DENNIS COHEN, 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.
Dennis Cohen appeals his re-sentence following this court's prior reversal of a departure sentence. The court affirmed the imposition of minimum mandatory sentences for armed burglary and robbery convictions, but reversed the consecutive stacking of those mandatory sentences, requiring them to run concurrently since all offenses occurred during a single criminal episode.
The court held that the minimum mandatory sentence for armed burglary was properly imposed based on the guilty verdict. However, the stacking of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences was error because the two robberies and aggravated assault were committed during a single criminal episode, requiring the minimum mandatory sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively.
[1] A minimum mandatory sentence for armed burglary may be imposed based on a jury verdict finding the defendant guilty of that offense as charged.
[2] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are improper when the offenses were committed during a single criminal episode without adequate temporal or spatial distinction.
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“Because the two robberies and the aggravated assault were all committed during a single criminal episode, it was error to have these minimum mandatory sentences run consecutively.”
Establishes the core holding that consecutive minimum mandatory sentences were improper for offenses committed during a single criminal episode.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCohen was convicted of one count of burglary of a structure while armed, robbery with a firearm of two victims (counts III and IV), aggravated assault…
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 Use Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of his sentence after this court reversed a departure sentence of life imprisonment and remanded for re-sentencing within the guidelines. Cohen v. State, 656 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), review denied, 666 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1996).1 We find no error in the imposition of a minimum mandatory sentence for armed burglary based on the verdict finding him guilty of that offense “as charged in the information.” State v. Tripp, 642 So. 2d 728 (Fla.1994), is distinguishable from the facts presented here. The stacking of minimum mandatory sentences was error, however. Because the two robberies and the aggravated assault were all committed during a single criminal episode, it was error to have these minimum mandatory sentences run consecutively. Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1995); State v. Boatwright, 559 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1990); LeCroy v. State, 533 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1988), cert, denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3262, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989); State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986); Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983).
There was no adequate temporal or spacial distinction between the offenses that would permit the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences based on use of a firearm.
Accordingly, we amend the judgment and sentences to reflect that the minimum mandatory sentences be served concurrently.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; SENTENCES AMENDED.
PETERSON, C. J., and GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . As noted by the parties at sentencing, our earlier opinion erroneously catalogued appellant’s convictions. In fact, he was convicted of: one count of burglary of a structure while armed (Count II); robbery with a firearm of Jerry Gause and Samuel Just (Counts III and IV); an aggravated assault of Audrey Newman with a firearm (Count VII); and two counts of grand theft auto.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Vinney Tripp, 642 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Boatwright, 559 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1990)
- Cleo Douglas LeCROY v. State, 533 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1988)
- Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1995)
- Pervez v. United States, 492 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1989)
- Rojas v. United States, 492 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1989)
- Cohen v. State, 656 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)