LORENZO RANDOLPH, 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.
Court affirmed armed robbery conviction and 25-year sentence but reversed the consecutive ordering of two mandatory-minimum sentences, requiring them to run concurrently as they arose from a single criminal episode.
Two mandatory-minimum sentences imposed for conduct arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently, not consecutively.
[1] Mandatory-minimum sentences imposed for conduct constituting a single criminal episode must run concurrently rather than consecutively.
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 intelligenceAppellant Randolph was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to 25 years in prison, subject to a 15-year mand…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, we affirm without discussion appellant’s conviction for armed robbery, and his sentence of 25 years in prison as an habitual violent felony offender, subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1993), and a 3-year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1993). However, as the state properly concedes, it was error to order that the two mandatory-minimum sentences run consecutively because both were attribut-. able to conduct which was part of a single criminal episode. Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1995). (The judgment and sentence form does not, itself, specify that the two mandatory-minimum sentences are to run consecutively; however, that such was the trial court’s intent is clear from the oral pronouncement of sentence and from the document titled “Sentence as Habitual Violent Felony Offender” appended to the judgment and sentence form.) Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the sentence which directs that the two mandatory-minimum sentences be served consecutively, and remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended judgment and sentence specifying that the two are to run concurrently. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bechtel Corp. v. Batchelor, 250 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…example, many leases that discuss the relative responsibility of the landlord and tenant to maintain certain areas, the service contracts here are silent regarding any transfer of possession or control. Cf. Benton Inv. Co. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 704 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (where lease provided tenant and landowner had joint responsibility to maintain parking lot, a jury could find tenant breached duty to invitee criminally assaulted in parking lot). Certainly, the simple existence of a cost-…
-
Transp. Eng'g, Inc. v. Cruz, 152 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
-
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Schroeder, 411 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1995)