JAMES L. HALL, 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.
James L. Hall appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging the trial court's imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for felony murder and armed robbery arising from the same criminal episode. The court reverses, holding that under Boler v. State, the minimum mandatory sentence for the underlying robbery cannot run consecutively to the minimum mandatory sentence for felony murder when both crimes stem from a single criminal episode.
The trial court erred in imposing consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. Under Boler v. State, the three-year minimum mandatory sentence for the underlying robbery cannot run consecutively to the twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence for felony murder when both convictions arise from the same criminal episode.
[1] A consecutive minimum mandatory sentence for an underlying felony cannot be imposed consecutively to a minimum mandatory sentence for felony murder when both offenses ari…
[2] A trial court may be directed to impose minimum mandatory sentences concurrently or to attach record portions indicating that the offenses did not arise from a single cri…
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“the three year minimum mandatory sentence for the underlying robbery could not be imposed consecutively to the twenty five year minimum mandatory for felony murder”
Establishes the controlling legal rule from Boler that prohibits consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for felony murder and its underlying felony when arising from a single criminal episode
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was convicted of first-degree felony murder and robbery with a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for twenty-five year…
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
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to coi'rect illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
The appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder (count one) and robbery with a firearm (count two). He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for twenty five years on count one and ten years’ imprisonment with a minimum mandatory sentence of three years for count two. The sentences wei*e ordered to run consecutively.
In his motion to correct illegal sentence, the appellant assei-ts that his consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for counts one and two are illegal because the crimes arose from a single criminal episode.1 In Boler v. State, 678 So.2d 319 (Fla.1996), a defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and robbery (the underlying felony) for killing a convenience store clerk during an armed l'obbery. The defendant was sentenced to life impi'isonment with a twenty five year minimum mandatory for first-degree murder. Id. at 322. He was given a consecutive life sentence for the robbery, which included a three year minimum mandatoi'y for the use of a firearm. Id. The Court held that the three year minimum mandatory sentence for the underlying robbery could not be imposed consecutively to the twenty five year minimum mandatory for felony murder. Id. at 323.
Boler is directly on point with this case. Here, the appellant alleges that he was also convicted of felony murder and the undeiiying l'obbery involving the same victim. Therefore, the trial court could not impose the three year minimum mandatory for possession of a firearm consecutively to appellant’s twenty five year minimum sentence for felony murder. We reverse and remand with directions that the trial court impose the twenty five year and three year minimum mandatory sentences to run concurrently or attach portions of the record indicating that the felony murder and robbery convictions did not arise from a single criminal episode.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BARFIELD, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parkes v. State, 31 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ld that the 3-year minimum mandatory sentence for the underlying robbery could not be imposed [*921] consecutively to the 25-year minimum mandatory for felony murder. Id. at 323. We conclude that Boler, rather than Downs, applies. See Hall v. State, 14 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that Boler controls where a defendant is convicted of felony murder and the underlying crime involved the same victim, therefore, the trial court could not impose the 3-year minimum mandatory for possession of a firearm…
-
Donnie D. Phillips v. State, 99 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1996), cited in the majority opinion, as Boler involved a felony murder conviction where the perpetrator lolled the store clerk “during an armed robbery.” Id. at 320. Similarly, this court’s decision in Hall v. State, 14 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), is not controlling for two reasons. First, Hall does not cite to an underlying factual basis, but refers only to the defendant’s assertions and allegations that the convictions of first-degree felony murder and robbery involved…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Afghari Boler v. State, 678 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1996)