ADRIAN DERRICK HAGANS, 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's convictions for two counts of aggravated battery with firearm enhancements were affirmed, but the case was reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court lacked discretion to impose consecutive mandatory minimums under the 10-20-Life statute, which was later clarified by Williams v. State to permit but not mandate consecutive sentencing.
Consecutive sentencing under the 10-20-Life statute is permissible but not mandatory when multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously.
[1] Under the 10-20-Life statute, consecutive sentencing for multiple firearm offenses committed contemporaneously is permissible but not mandatory, and trial courts have dis…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“If ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”
Florida Supreme Court's holding in Williams v. State regarding discretion in consecutive sentencing under the 10-20-Life statute
Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery with jury findings that he actually possessed and discharged a firearm causing death or gr…
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 10-20-Life Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
On the Court’s own motion, we withdraw the opinion filed February 2, 2016, and substitute the following opinion, in its place. ' .
Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery, and the jury found that Appellant actually possessed and discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily harm during the commission of each offense. We affirm Appellant’s convictions without comment, but we reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016). At. the time of sentencing, the trial court followed then-controlling precedent from this Court, which, required the trial court to impose consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute, During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court decided Williams 'and held that consecutive sentencing is permissible, but not mandatory. See id. at 993 (“If ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive senténcing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”) (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
ROBERTS, CJ„ ROWE and RAY, JJ., concur.,