DERRICK GOREE, 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.
Derrick Goree appeals an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging the imposition of three consecutive thirty-year sentences for three counts of attempted second-degree murder and the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that consecutive sentencing is permissible under Florida law and that stacking of mandatory minimum sentences is allowed when a defendant shoots at multiple victims.
The court affirmed that consecutive sentencing is permissible under Florida Statute § 775.021(4) and that stacking of mandatory minimum sentences is permissible where a defendant shoots at multiple victims, even if the injury consists of heightened danger caused by a fired weapon at a victim who was not hit.
[1] Consecutive sentencing is permissible for multiple convictions of attempted second-degree murder.
[2] Sentences imposed for attempted second-degree murder are not rendered illegal by reliance on cases involving consecutive habitual offender sentences when the defendant wa…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“consecutive sentencing is permissible. See § 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (1979). The sentences are legal, not illegal.”
Establishes that consecutive sentencing for the three attempted murder convictions is legally permitted under Florida statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoree was convicted of three counts of attempted second-degree murder. He was sentenced to three consecutive thirty-year sentences. Two of the victims…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Goree appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Goree argues that it was impermissible for the trial court to sentence him to three consecutive thirty-year sentences for three convictions of attempted second degree murder. On the contrary, consecutive sentencing is permissible. See § 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (1979). The sentences are legal, not illegal. The cases relied on by the defendant all involve consecutive habitual offender sentences. See Long v. State, 652 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Rolling v. State, 643 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Wonyetye v. State, 648 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In the present case the defendant was not sentenced as a habitual offender, so the cases he has cited do not apply here.
The defendant also argues that the trial court should not have imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences with respect to two of the victims, Gabriel Prie-to and Armando Echemendia. He alleges that both of the victims were sitting in the same car at the time that he fired gunshots at them. The defendant wounded Prieto but not Echemendia. We reject the defendant’s argument because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences “is permissible where the defendant shoots at multiple victims.... ” State v. Christian, 692 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla.1997) (footnote omitted). “The injury may consist of the heightened danger caused by a fired weapon. See State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986) (approving stacking of two firearm mandatory minimum terms where defendant shot woman and shot at, but missed, her son.” Id. at 891 n. 4. Thus, stacking of mandatory minimum sentences was permissible.
The defendant relies on this court’s decision in Witherspoon v. State, 833 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), but the facts of that case are not stated. The Christian decision spells out when stacking is, and is not, permitted.
The defendant also relies on this court’s decision in Ward v. State, 630 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). There, too, the facts of the case are not stated. The later decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Christian is controlling to the extent of any inconsistency.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valentin v. State, 963 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…y consist of the heightened danger caused by a fired weapon.”); State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986) (approving stacking of two firearm mandatory minimum terms where defendant shot one victim and shot at, but missed, another); Goree v. State, 911 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Hargrove v. State, 905 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (upholding consecutive twenty-year minimum mandatory sentences for two counts of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm where defendant stepped in front of vehicle c…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Christian, 692 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1997)
- Wonyetye v. State, 648 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Ward v. State, 630 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Kohn v. City OF Miami, 630 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Rolling v. State, 643 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Long v. State, 652 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Witherspoon v. State, 833 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Frazier v. Pozzi, 833 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)