LAQ LAMAR SWANIGAN, 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.
Appellant Swanigan was convicted of five felonies including attempted second-degree murder, burglary, aggravated battery with a firearm, simple battery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the firearm possession conviction, holding that consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under Florida's 10-20-life statute are improper when offenses occur in a single criminal episode unless the defendant injures multiple victims or causes multiple injuries to one victim.
The imposition of a consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was error. Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, are improper when offenses occur during a single criminal episode unless the defendant discharges the firearm and injures multiple victims or causes multiple injuries to one victim. The sentence for firearm possession must be imposed concurrently.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, are improper where offenses occurred during a single criminal episode unless the defen…
[2] Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is an offense governed by section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes.
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 imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2008), is improper where the offenses occurred during a single criminal episode unless the defendant discharges the firearm and injures multiple victims or causes multiple injuries to one victim”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for when consecutive 10-20-life sentences are permissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and an accomplice burst into a home looking for money. They kicked and hit one person and then shot a second person. Appellant was convicted…
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 Consecutive Mandatory Minimum Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, LaQ Lamar Swanigan [“Appellant”] appeals his judgment and sentences after he was found guilty, by a *990jury of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm (count I), burglary of a dwelling (count II), aggravated battery with a firearm (count III), simple battery (count IV), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count V). Appellant raises several issues on appeal; however, we find error in only one. We agree that imposition of a consecutive sentence for count V was error.
Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2007) governs the imposition of sentences for specified offenses that involve the use of a firearm. Included among those crimes is possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See § 775.087(2)(a)l.r., Fla. Stat. (2008). In this case, the Appellant and an accomplice burst into a home, looking for money, kicking and hitting one person and then shooting a second person.
The general rule that has emerged from a series of decisions rendered by the Florida Supreme Court is that the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2008), is improper where the offenses occurred during a single criminal episode unless the defendant discharges the firearm and injures multiple victims or causes multiple injuries to one victim. Valentin v. State, 963 So.2d 317, 319-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889 (Fla.1997); State v. Thomas, 487 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1986); Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983)).
In Irizarry v. State, 946 So.2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), this Court determined that State v. Sousa, 903 So.2d 923 (Fla.2005), made clear that Christian and Thomas still apply in determining when minimum mandatory sentences for 10-20-life offenses may be consecutively imposed. Applying the principles enunciated in those cases to the facts in Irizarry, this Court concluded that each of Irizarry’s offenses was a 10-20-life offense, that each offense arose from a single criminal episode, and that during this criminal episode, Irizarry did not injure multiple victims or cause multiple injuries to any one victim. Nor did Irizarry fire his weapon. As a result, the consecutively imposed sentences were reversed. 946 So.2d at 558. Similarly, in this case, there is no authority for imposition of a consecutive sentence for the conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in the course of the single criminal episode. We accordingly vacate this sentence and remand for imposition of a concurrent sentence.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. State, 190 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…lain why his consecutive sentences are permissible.' Martin’s argument is that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive terms on counts one and two, which both arose [*254] from one criminal episode. He relies exclusively on Swanigan v. State, 57 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), which held that the trial court, erred by imposing a consecutive sentence for one of five charges, that being possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count V),2 a charge that does not require the discharge of a firearm. Th…1 / 2
-
Issac Nicholas Ray Fleming v. State, 75 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…he criminal episode, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences as to the armed kidnapping and two aggravated assault charges were impermissible. We remand for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum sentences on those counts. See Swanigan v. State, 57 So. 3d 989, 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We do not agree with the State’s concession of error that the trial court improperly stacked the sentence for sexual battery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. A trial court has the authority to stack mandatory minimum sente…
-
Edwards v. State, 145 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…e the offenses occurred during a single episode unless the defendant discharges his firearm and injures 1 multiple victims or causes multiple injuries to one victim. Irizarry v. State, 946 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006);2 see also Swanigan v. State, 57 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding error to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under section 775.087(2) for attempted second-degree murder with firearm and possession of firearm by convicted felon where defendant and accomplice burst into home…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Christian, 692 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Sousa, 903 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2005)
- Sigfredo Irizarry v. State, 946 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Siplen v. State, 963 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Valentin v. State, 963 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)