RODNEY MICHEL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal granted defendant Michel's habeas corpus petition on the ground that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the trial court's imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under section 775.087(2)(d) when the sentences arose from a single criminal episode. The Supreme Court had reversed the appellate court's prior interpretation of the statute to hold that consecutive sentences are not required in such circumstances.
The court granted the habeas corpus petition on the ground that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the sentencing issue. The court held that section 775.087(2)(d) does not require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from one criminal episode, following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. State.
[1] A statute requiring consecutive sentences for felony offenses does not mandate consecutive sentences when those offenses arise from a single criminal episode.
[2] Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel can be established by counsel's failure to raise a circuit court's error in imposing consecutive minimum mandatory sentences w…
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“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 critical statutory language from section 775.087(2)(d) that was at issue regarding when consecutive sentences must be imposed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Michel was convicted on multiple counts, including counts three and four that arose from one criminal episode. The trial court imposed conse…
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
On Remand from The Supreme Court of Florida
This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida. The defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on four grounds. On ground one, the defendant argued appellate counsel failed to raise the circuit court’s error in finding that it was required to impose consecutive minimum mandatory : ten-year sentences on counts three and four, resulting-from one criminal episode, pursuant to section- 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008):
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).
In an order, we denied the petition in reliance upon our decision in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). In Williams, we concluded that section 775.087(2)(d) required the trial court to impose consecutive sentences resulting from one criminal episode, id. at 880. 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 *619of 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).
Our supreme court then quashed our decision in this case and remanded for reconsideration upon application of its decision in Williams. Michel v. State, SC13-1319, 2016 WL 2593905 (Fla. May 5, 2016).
Based on the foregoing, we grant the defendant’s petition on ground one only. We deny, without discussion, the defendant’s petition on grounds two, three, and four. We remand for resentencing on counts three and four, consistent with our supreme court’s decision in Williams.
Petition granted in part and denied in part; remanded for resentencing.
DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur. ’
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)