ROBERT BOLTUCH, 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.
The court held that consecutive sentences for offenses committed in a single criminal episode are legal, and the failure to orally pronounce a mandatory minimum sentence does not render it illegal if it is included in the written sentence.
[1] Consecutive sentences for offenses committed during a single criminal transaction or episode are permissible.
[2] A trial court may impose separate sentences for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal transaction or episode.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Boltuch was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. He received consecutive sentences, including a …
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Boltuch appeals the denial of his “All Writs Petition” and his Fourth Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. We affirm.
In August 2000, a jury convicted Boltuch of first-degree murder and attempted sec*339ond-degree murder with a firearm. The court imposed the mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for the murder and a consecutive term of thirty years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum for possession of the firearm on the attempted murder count. See § 775.087, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Appellant contends that his consecutive sentences on these counts are illegal and result in a manifest injustice because he fired a single burst of seven shots at the two victims, and the offenses occurred in a single criminal episode. The consecutive sentences are legal. § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). (“Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.”).
Appellant also contends that his sentence on the second count is illegal because the court never orally pronounced the three-year mandatory minimum that was included as part of the written sentence. Although the mandatory minimum was discussed at the sentencing hearing, and found to apply, the court did not formally announce that it was imposing the mandatory minimum.
In Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901 (Fla.2012), the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court’s failure to orally pronounce the mandatory minimum at sentencing, and its addition of the mandatory minimum to the written sentence later that day, did not violate double jeopardy. This court’s decision in Losh v. State, 51 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), which held that the correction of a sentence in similar circumstances violated double jeopardy and resulted in an illegal sentence, is overruled.
Affirmed.
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.”); Boltuch v. State, 95 So. 3d 338, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding defendant’s consecutive sentences legal even though criminal act occurred during single episode because act affected two separate victims); § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (1989) (“A person who has been convicted of a capi…
Authorities Cited
- Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 2012)
- Losh v. State, 51 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)