ANTHONY JEROME PALMER, 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.
Anthony Palmer was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery while masked, and armed burglary of a dwelling. The trial court imposed three consecutive 10-year mandatory minimum sentences under Florida's 10-20-Life statute, but the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. State subsequently held that consecutive mandatory minimums are impermissible when firearms are merely possessed but not discharged during offenses arising from the same criminal episode. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentence and remanded for concurrent mandatory minimum terms.
The trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. State, consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged. The trial court must instead impose the mandatory minimum sentences concurrently under such circumstances.
[1] Consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a f…
[2] A trial court must impose mandatory minimum sentences concurrently when multiple firearm offenses arise from the same criminal episode and a firearm was only possessed, n…
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 intelligence“consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Williams v. State regarding when mandatory minimums must be imposed concurrently
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalmer was convicted of three offenses arising from a single criminal episode: attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery while masked, 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 Firearm Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of three offenses (attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery while masked, and armed burglary of a dwelling) arising *331out of a single criminal episode. The jury found that Appellant actually possessed a firearm during the commission of each offense, and the trial court imposed three consecutive 10-year mandatory minimum terms pursuant to the 10-20-Life statute and this court’s decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), review granted, 145 So.3d 830 (Fla. 2014). ‘ On appeal, Appéllant argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms because Walton was wrongly decided.1
During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), that
consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged. It follows, therefore, that a trial court must impose the mandatory minimum sentences concurrently under such circumstances.
Id. at 993. Williams effectively abrogated Walton ’s holding that trial courts are authorized to “stack” mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute even when the defendant did not discharge a firearm.
Williams is controlling here because, although there,was- evidence that Appellant discharged a firearm during commission of the offenses (indeed, one of the victims was shot twice in the leg), the jury only found that Appellant possessed a firearm during commission of the offenses.2 Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive mandatory minimum terms.
In sum, for the reasons stated above, we affirm Appellant’s convictions, but reverse his sentence and remand for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum terms in accordance with Williams.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
WETHERELL, MAKAR, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palmer v. State, 196 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), review granted, 145 So. 3d 830 (Fla.2014) (holding .trial courts are authorized to “stack” mandatory minimum terms under 10-20-Life statute even when the defendant did not discharge a firearm). See Palmer v. State, 189 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Here, the jury only found that Appellant possessed a firearm during the commission of the two counts of aggravated assault. For the reasons stated above, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)