DARRYL PARKS, 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.
Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for firearm use and habitual offender status on robbery convictions are illegal when imposed consecutively to a mandatory minimum for first-degree felony murder arising from the same criminal episode.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for a firearm offense and a felony murder conviction are illegal when arising from a single criminal episode.
[2] Habitual violent offender mandatory minimum sentences for robbery must run concurrently with a mandatory minimum sentence for a first-degree murder conviction.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and three counts of armed robbery, receiving consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. His motion…
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 Single Criminal Episode Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of first degree felony murder and three counts of armed robbery. He was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. On the murder conviction, appellant was sentenced to life in prison with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum. On each of the three armed robbery convictions, appellant was sentenced to life in prison with a three year firearm mandatory minimum and a fifteen year habitual violent felony offender mandatory minimum. Each armed robbery sentence was imposed concurrent to one another, but consecutive to the murder sentence. We issued a PCA on appellant’s direct appeal. Subsequently, his rule 3.850 motion was summarily denied. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
The only error perceived by us in the summary denial is with respect to appellant’s sentence. Appellant argues that the consecutive mandatory minimum portions of his sentence for first degree murder and three counts of armed robbery are illegal because they arose from a single criminal episode. We agree.
That portion of appellant’s sentences which imposed a three year firearm mandatory minimum on the robberies consecutive to the twenty-five year mandatory minimum for the first degree murder conviction is illegal. See Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1996) (twenty-five year mandatory minimum on life sentence for first degree felony murder cannot be imposed consecutively to three year mandatory' minimum term for use of firearm in consecutive life sentence for robbery).
Likewise, the fifteen year habitual violent offender mandatory minimum sentences on the three robbery convictions were required to run concurrently with the twenty-five year mandatory minimum on the murder sentence. See Pangburn v. State, 661 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1995) (habitual offender mandatory minimum sentence for robbery must run concurrently with sentences imposed for two first degree murder convictions).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kiedrowski v. State, 876 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…in original, bold emphasis added); see also Pangburn v. State, 661 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1995) (holding HFO mandatory minimum sentence for robbery must run concurrently with sentences imposed for non-HFO first degree murder convictions); Parks v. State, 701 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding fifteen year HFO mandatory minimum sentences on the three robbery convictions were required to run concurrently with the twenty-five year non-HFO mandatory minimum on the murder sentence). Here appellant was senten…
-
Florczak v. State, 712 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1995). As such, the fifteen year habitual violent offender mandatory minimum sentence on the robbery conviction is required to run concurrently with the twenty-five year mandatory minimum on the murder sentence. See Parks v. State, 701 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Finally, we note there is a scrivener’s error on the face of the judgment of conviction. Although Florezak was acquitted of grand theft, the written judgment states otherwise. Although he did not move to correct this error belo…
-
Andujar v. State, 808 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…to the twenty-five-year sentence for first-degree murder where both offenses arose out of a single episode. If Andujar is correct in his allegations, such a sentencing scheme is illegal. See Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1996); Parks v. State, 701 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The trial court denied Andujar’s claim, finding that it was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and that the motion was untimely as a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. However, a claim [*272] that the trial…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Afghari Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1996)
- Pangburn v. State, 661 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1995)