DANIEL SCOTT 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.
Daniel Scott Palmer appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of simple assault. The appellate court reverses and remands on two issues: the trial court's failure to apply the correct weight-of-evidence standard to the motion for new trial, and the improper imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the 10-20-Life statute when the jury found only that appellant possessed a firearm rather than discharged it.
The trial court reversibly erred in applying the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard instead of the weight-of-the-evidence standard to the motion for new trial. The trial court also erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under 10-20-Life because recent Florida Supreme Court precedent in Williams v. State abrogated the prior holding allowing such consecutive sentences when the defendant did not discharge a firearm.
[1] A trial court errs when it applies a sufficiency of the evidence standard to a motion for a new trial instead of the weight of the evidence standard.
[2] If a trial court grants a motion for a new trial, it need not address other issues raised on appeal.
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 trial court erred in applying a sufficiency of the evidence standard, and that the correct standard was the weight of the evidence”
Establishes that the State conceded the trial court applied the wrong standard to the motion for new trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of simple assault. The jury found that appellant posse…
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 Consecutive Mandatory Minimum Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals his judgment and sentence for -two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly .weapon and two counts of simple assault, raising four issues on appeal. We find merit as to two issues, and reverse for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. -
Appellant first" asserts that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to apply the correct standard to Appellant’s motion for new trial. The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in applying a sufficiency of the evidence standard, and that the correct standard was the weight of the evidence. See Spear v. State, 860 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Appellant’s motion . for new trial. As we previously noted in Spear:
*1290Upon remand, if the trial court concludes that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it should grant the motion for new trial. In the event the trial court concludes that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, it may again deny the motion and enter a new judgment and sentence accordingly. See Adams v. State, 417 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
On remand, if the trial court grants the motion for new trial, it need not address the second error in this appeal; however, if the trial court denies Appellant’s motion for new trial, it will also need to conduct further proceedings as to sentencing. In particular, we find merit in Appellant’s fourth issue raised on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences as to the two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under the 10-20-Life sentencing scheme based on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016). This court has recently concluded that Williams effectively abrogated this court’s holding in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 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 in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
B.L. THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 248 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…termine credibility just as a juror would. See Fergien , 79 So. 3d at 908. This Court has previously reversed the denial of a new-trial motion when the trial court applied, or appeared to apply, the wrong [*210] legal standard. See Palmer v. State , 196 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing after trial court applied a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard instead of weight-of-the-evidence standard); Spear v. State , 860 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing because "the trial court's findings indicate…
-
Jordan v. State, 244 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Moreland v. State, 253 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
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
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Deron Spear v. State, 860 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Adams v. State, 417 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Palmer v. State, 189 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)