JESSE O. COTTENGIM, 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.
Jesse Cottengim appeals the trial court's denial of his request for a coterminous sentence, arguing the court mistakenly believed such sentences were illegal. The Fifth District holds that while Florida law prohibits coterminous sentences between different jurisdictions, it does not prohibit a single court from imposing coterminous sentences within its own cases, and remands for resentencing.
The trial court may lawfully impose a coterminous sentence on its own cases. Section 921.16(3) prohibits only coterminous sentences imposed by one court running with sentences from another court in the same or different state. The statute does not prohibit a single court from making its own sentences coterminous with each other.
[1] A trial court may not direct that a sentence imposed by a Florida court be served coterminously with a sentence imposed by another court of this state or another state.
[2] A statutory amendment prohibiting coterminous sentences between different jurisdictions does not prohibit a court from imposing a coterminous sentence within its own case…
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“The Legislature did not prohibit coterminous sentences imposed by a sentencing judge on his or her own cases.”
Establishes the core holding that section 921.16(3) does not bar coterminous sentences within a single court's own cases, only between different courts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCottengim pleaded guilty to a series of charges and requested a coterminous sentence (one running concurrently with and terminating simultaneously wit…
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 Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Jesse Cottengim appeals from the denial of his request to be given a coterminous sentence following his plea to a series of charges.1 The trial judge declined to consider his request, believing such a sentence was illegal.
The operative statute is section 921.16(3), Florida Statutes (2005). Prior to October 1, 2003, trial courts had the authority to order a sentence be served coterminously as well as concurrently with a sentence in another jurisdiction.2 That statute was amended as follows: “(3) A county or circuit court of this state may not direct that the sentence imposed by such court be served coterminously with a sentence imposed by another court of. this state or imposed by a court of another state.” Id. The Legislature did not prohibit coterminous sentences imposed by a sentencing judge on his or her own cases. This is what Cottengim requested, although somewhat inarticulately. Had the Legislature intended to prohibit coterminous sentences, it would have been simple enough to accomplish.3
Sentencing is a decision that is within the trial court’s discretion. Howev*211er, the exercise of discretion presupposes the trial court understanding the legal options available and making a decision accordingly. Here, the trial court was under the mistaken view that it could not lawfully impose a coterminous sentence.
Because coterminous sentences have been recognized as a legitimate sentencing option, see Moore v. Pearson, 789 So.2d 316 (Fla.2001), a coterminous sentence would have been lawful. The statutory amendment did not affect Pearson in regard to courts imposing coterminous sentences on its own cases. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion in resentencing. We express no opinion as to the appropriateness of such a sentence in Cottengim’s cases.
REMANDED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gadson v. State, 165 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…y with a deadly weapon is a first-degree felony punishable by a life sentence, but an attempt to commit that offense is reclassified as a second-degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years in the Department of Corrections. Johnson v. State, 44 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Although a first-degree felony punishable by life is punishable by a potentially longer sentence then a standard first-degree felony, for the purpose of sentencing it does not constitute a separate classification of offenses, wh…
-
Ceus v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Pearson, 789 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2001)