JEREMIAH T. PINKARD, 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 Pinkard was convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault with a firearm, and shooting into an occupied vehicle following a road rage incident that resulted in a fatal shooting. On appeal, Pinkard challenged the consecutive sentencing imposed on his shooting-into-an-occupied-vehicle conviction, but the court affirmed all convictions and the sentence structure.
The court affirmed Pinkard's convictions and sentence. The trial court did not commit reversible error in imposing a consecutive sentence for Count 5 because, under Cotto v. State, the prohibition in Hale v. State against consecutive enhanced sentences does not extend to unenhanced sentences.
[1] A sentence's legality is a question of law subject to de novo review.
[2] A conviction for manslaughter can be reclassified to a first-degree felony due to the use of a firearm.
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 legality of a sentence is a question of law and is subject to de novo review.”
Establishes the standard of review applied to sentencing issues on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a road rage confrontation at a traffic light, Pinkard, driving a Dodge Magnum, threatened to kill the occupants of a Suzuki SUV (driver McFerré…
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 De Novo Review Of Sentence Legality cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case of road rage in which the occupants of a Dodge Magnum confronted the driver and passenger of a Suzuki SUV. The Suzuki was occupied by McFerrél Jones, the driver, and Rashaud Burris, the passenger. After the Suzuki allegedly cut off the Dodge, Appellant, the driver of the Dodge, pulled up next to the Suzuki at a stop light and said that he would end both Jones’ and Bums’ lives that night if they did not stop driving so fast. Burns explained that they were rushing to the hospital because his .baby was about to be born. As the traffic light turned' green and the cars began to separate, Appellant fired multiple shots in the direction of the Suzuki- while one of the Dodge’s backseat passengers fired one shot at the Suzuki. One of the bullets .struck Jones in the back of the head, killing him. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of manslaughter, aggravated assault- with a firearm, and shooting into an occupied vehicle. The jury made the specific finding that Appellant did actually carry, possess, and discharge a firearm during the commission of the crime. We affirm- his convictions without further discussion. We will briefly discuss an issue raised by Appellant regarding the consecutive sentence imposed as to Count 5.'
“The legality of a sentence is a question of law and is subject to de novo *1290review.” Flowers v. State, 899 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Wardlaw v. State, 832 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Concerning the indictment’s first count, Appellant was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter, a second-degree felony. The offense was reclassified to a first-degree felony due to Appellant’s use of a firearm,¡and Appellant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. See § 775.087, Fla. Stat. (2011). Appellant’s sentence for Count 2, aggravated assault, a third-degree felony, was enhanced due to Appellant’s discharge of a firearm, requiring a “minimum term of .imprisonment of 20 years,” to run concurrently with the sentence for Count 1. See § 775.087(2)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2011).1 His fifteen-year prison, sentence for. Count 5, shooting into an occupied vehicle was not enhanced and was ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences.
On appeal, Appellant relied on Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), in support of his argument that, his sentence for Count 5 should not run consecutively to his sentences for Counts 1 and. 2. Hale prohibits the imposition of enhanced consecutive sentences for crimes committed during a single criminal episode. 630 So.2d at 524. However, in Cotto v. State, 139 So.3d 283 (Fla.2014), the Florida Supreme Court held that it was “unwilling to extend Hale to apply to unenhanced sentences.” 139 So.3d at 289.2 Because the sentence for Count 5 was not enhanced, the trial court did not-commit reversible error in ordering the sentence for 'Count 5 to run consecutively to the sentences imposed for Counts 1 and 2.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrius Montgomery v. State, 230 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…Constitution and that the 10-20-Life statute no longer applies to juvenile offenders tried and convicted as adults.'We agree in part and reverse. The legality of a sentence is a question of law, and thus, subject to de novo review. Pinkard v. State, 185 So. 3d 1289, 1289-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Similarly, our review of the constitutionality of a sentence is de novo. Peterson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). The unsettled state of juvenile sentencing for nonhomicide offenders began with Gra…
-
Williams v. State, 211 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…onment with a review hearing after twenty-five years on count 1 and fifty years’ imprisonment with a review hearing after twenty years on count 2. “The legality of a sentence is a question of law and is subject to de novo review.” Pinkard v. State, 185 So. 3d 1289, 1289-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Flowers v. State, 899 So. 2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). The relevant statutory section at issue in this case provides: 1. A person who actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim an…
-
State v. Donnell LEE Ingram, 299 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…o contest to the charges, and the trial court imposed a probationary sentence consistent with its earlier pronouncement. The State timely appealed. “The legality of a sentence is a question of law and is subject to de novo review.” Pinkard v. State, 185 So. 3d 1289, 1289–90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Flowers v. State, 899 So. 2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). Similarly, statutory interpretation is also subject to de novo review. See Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284, 288 (Fla. 2007). 2 The State argues that…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Flowers v. State, 899 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Jackson v. State, 659 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1995)
- Cotto v. State, 139 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2014)
- Fuller v. State, 867 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Wardlaw v. State, 832 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)