RONALD WILLIAMS, 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.
Ronald Williams appealed his four consecutive minimum mandatory twenty-year sentences for aggravated assault with a firearm. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's interpretation of section 775.087(2)(d), holding that consecutive sentences are not required when sentences arise from a single criminal episode.
The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that section 775.087(2)(d) does not require consecutive sentences when sentences arise from a single criminal episode.
[1] A statute mandating consecutive sentences for felony offenses does not require consecutive sentences when the offenses arise from a single criminal episode.
[2] A court's prior interpretation of a statute, affirmed by an appellate court, may be revisited and reversed upon remand from a higher court.
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“It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.”
The controlling statute that was subject to interpretation regarding whether consecutive sentences were mandatory for all counts in a single criminal episode.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm resulting from one criminal episode. The trial court imposed four consecuti…
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 Aggravated Assault With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
En Banc/On Remand From The Supreme Court of Florida
This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida. The defendant appealed his four consecutive minimum mandatory twenty-year sentences on four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm resulting from one criminal episode. He argued the trial court erred in finding that it was required to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides:
It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.
§ 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat, (2008) (emphasis added).
Sitting en banc, we affirmed, concluding that section 775,087(2)(d), required the trial court to impose consecutive sentences resulting from one criminal episode. Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). However, we certified the following question to be of great public importance:
Does section 775.087(2)(d)’s statement that “The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term *985of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense” require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from one criminal episode?
Our supreme court answered the certified question in the negative and quashed our decision. Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016).
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the defendant’s four consecutive minimum mandatory twenty-year sentences and remand for resentencing consistent with our supreme court’s decision.
Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER, STEVENSON, GROSS, TAYLOR, .MAY, DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE, CONNER, FORST, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.1
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Grant v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Williams v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)