DERON DELAREASE GREEN, 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.
Deron Delarease Green appealed his convictions for armed burglary and armed robbery with a firearm, challenging the trial court's imposition of consecutive ten-year minimum mandatory sentences under Florida's 10-20-life statute. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentencing, holding that minimum mandatory enhancement sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently absent specific legislative authorization.
The court held that minimum mandatory enhancement sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently absent specific legislative authorization. Therefore, the trial court was not authorized to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences, and the case was remanded for imposition of concurrent minimum mandatory sentences.
[1] Errors, if any, in a trial court's pre-sentencing rulings are harmless when the defendant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion.
[2] Consecutive sentences imposed on multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode, after enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute, constitute reve…
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“This provision does not explicitly prohibit a judge from imposing the minimum mandatory sentences concurrent to each other.”
Establishes that the legislative history of the 10-20-life statute permits concurrent imposition of minimum mandatory sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen was convicted of armed burglary with a firearm and armed robbery with a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment…
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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
GODERICH, Judge.
The defendant, Devon Delarease Green, appeals from his convictions and sentences for armed burglary with a firearm and armed robbery with a firearm. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.
In the instant case, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years imprisonment with a concurrent fifteen year minimum mandatory sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. In addition, for possession of a firearm, the trial court imposed a ten year minimum mandatory term for each offense in accordance with the 10-20-life statute. § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). The ten year minimum mandatory terms were to run concurrent to the other sentences, but consecutive to one another. The defendant contends that the imposition of consecutive ten year minimum mandatory terms was error because the convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. We agree.
In Mondesir v. State, 814 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), this Court rejected the State’s argument that the trial court was required to impose consecutive sentences as to each of the four 10-20-life offenses. In support thereof, this Court quoted the Final Analysis of CS/CS/HB 113 (SB 194) of the House of Representative’s Committee on Crime and Punishment. This bill later became Chapter 99-12, Laws of Florida, and subsection 775.087(2). It states:
The bill provides that the Legislature intends for the new minimum mandatory sentences to be imposed for each qualifying count, and the court is required to impose the minimum mandatory sentences required by the bill consecutive to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense. This provision does not explicitly prohibit a judge from imposing the minimum mandatory sentences concurrent to each other. (e.s.)
Mondesir, 814 So. 2d at 1173. See Roberts v. State, 834 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Stafford v. State, 818 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court has held that, absent specific legislative authorization, minimum mandatory enhancement sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993) (habitual felony offender statute), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992)(habitual violent felony offender statute). The Second and Fourth Districts have followed Hale and held that consecutive prison releasee reof-fender sentences that arose from a single criminal episode were illegal. Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
In the instant case, the defendant’s convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the trial court was not authorized to impose the enhanced consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. We, therefore, reverse and remand for the imposition of concurrent minimum mandatory sentences consistent with this opinion.
The defendant’s remaining points lack merit.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sousa v. State, 868 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e only refers to crimes that took place at a different time,1 i.e., the cocaine offense, and that when sentencing multiple offenses from the same criminal episode under section 775.087, the sentences should run concurrently. See also Green v. State, 845 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Roberts v. State, 834 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Sehnal v. State, 826 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Stafford v.…
-
Perreault v. State, 853 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…Palmer v. State, and prohibited minimum mandatory terms under the 10-20-Life Law from being stacked when the firearm offenses arose out of the same criminal episode. See Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Accord Green v. State, 845 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). In Cunningham v. State, 838 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), the state conceded that it was error for the trial court to stack minimum mandatory terms for firearm offenses which occurred during the same criminal episode, and the t…
-
Elozar v. State, 872 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…fically interpreted and applied section 775.087(2)(d) do not find such legislative authority in that statute either. See Arutyunyan v. State, 863 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Perreault v. State, 853 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Green v. State, 845 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Cunningham v. State, 838 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Stafford v. State, 818 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also Williams v. State, 820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002…
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 (12 total)
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Philome Mondesir v. State, 814 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Snead v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Blanc v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Ira Stafford v. State, 818 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Bruce v. Hollingsworth, 820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)