NORMAN OLIVER FOX, 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.
The court held that sentences must be served consecutively unless the sentencing court explicitly orders them to be served concurrently.
Defendant was convicted of murder and later trafficking in cocaine. His parole was revoked. The Department of Corrections ran his sentences consecutiv…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Norman Oliver Fox appeals an order denying his motion to clarify his sentence. We affirm.
According to the motion filed by defendant-appellant Fox, he was convicted of second degree murder in circuit court case number 76-1112. He was incarcerated and released on parole for life. He was subsequently convicted in circuit court case number 92-35818 of trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced to seventeen years with a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years. His parole in the 1976 case was revoked.
Defendant states that the Department of Corrections has structured his sentences so that the sentence in the 1992 case runs consecutive to the sentence in the 1976 case. He argues that the sentences should be concurrent.
The trial court correctly denied relief. “Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently.” § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). At sentencing on the 1992 case, the trial court did not order that the sentences be served concurrently. It follows that they must be served consecutively. See Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whipple v. Dep't OF Corr., 892 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ich did not mention WTiipple’s existing St. Johns sentence. Under such circumstances, DOC was required to run the Dade sentence consecutive to the St. Johns sentence pursuant to the legislative mandates of section 921.16(1). See, e.g., Fox v. State, 827 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that DOC correctly structured a defendant’s 1976 and 1992 sentences to run consecutively where they were not charged in the same instrument and the court did not order them to be served concurrently). In so doing, DO…
-
Scott v. State, 161 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1995); Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1975); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Fox v. State, 827 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…
-
Carbone v. State, 230 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011); Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1975); Carbone v. State, 132 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (table decision); Fox v. State, 827 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Benyard v. Louie L. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1975)