LINAKER CHARLEMAGNE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 the trial court was obligated to impose the minimum mandatory sentences consecutively under section 775.087(2)(d) of the Florida Statutes.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, both with a firearm. The trial court imposed concurrent minimum mand…
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 Firearm Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
Linaker Charlemagne appeals his conviction and sentence of one count of first-degree murder with a firearm causing death, and a'second' of 'attempted first-*541degree murder with a firearm causing great bodily harm. Pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3 of the Florida Statutes, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment for life, with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years on each count, the minimum-mandatory portions also to run concurrently. The State cross-appeals on the basis -that section 775.087(2)(d) requires that the minimum mandatory portions of the two sentences must be imposed consecutively. •
We find no merit in the points raised by the appellant on his appeal and affirm the conviction without discussion. " At the same time, we find the trial court had a mandatory obligation under section 775.087(2)(d) of the Florida Statutes (2014), to impose the minimum mandatory sentences consecutively in this case. Morgan v. State, 137 So.3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (stating that section 775.087(2) requires “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2) — whether the defendant fires a gun or only carries or displays it — shall be imposed consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony”);1 see also Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (en banc); Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. granted, 145 So.3d 830 (Fla.2014). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the sentences in this case with the direction they be corrected to recite that the minimum mandatory sentences will run consecutively. Given the mandatory non-discretionary nature of the resentenc-ing proceeding, the defendant need not be present for this purpose.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linaker Charlemagne v. State, 223 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…carried a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years in [*1125] prison. The trial court ordered that the twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentences be served concurrently. On direct appeal, we affirmed the convictions. Charlemagne v. State, 185 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (Mem). The State cross-appealed the twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentences, contending that the trial court did not have the discretion to direct that they be served concurrently. The State argued that the language of the 10…
Authorities Cited
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Grant v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Williams v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Javarus Lamont Morgan v. State, 137 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Gaspard, 137 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)