ANTHONY M. GARTMAN, 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.
Gartman appeals his convictions for armed robbery and firearm possession, challenging his consecutive sentences imposed under Florida's 10-20-Life statute. The appellate court vacates and remands for resentencing based on the intervening Florida Supreme Court decision in Williams v. State, which held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms for multiple firearm offenses arising from the same criminal episode are impermissible when the firearm was merely possessed but not discharged.
Consecutive mandatory minimum terms for multiple firearm offenses are permissible but not required under section 775.087, and when offenses arise from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged, consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum terms is impermissible. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences in this case.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for use or possession of a firearm during a qualifying felony are permissible but not required by statute.
[2] Consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is generally impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episo…
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Williams v. State regarding when consecutive sentences are impermissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGartman was convicted of armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 12 years with a 10-year mandatory minimum…
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
Following his convictions for armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Appellant was sentenced to a term of 12 years, with a 10-year mandatory minimum term for use of a firearm for the armed robbery offense, and to a term of 6 years with a 3-year mandatory minimum for use of a firearm. The sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was ordered to be served consecutively to the term imposed for armed robbery. Given the case law as it existed at the time of sentencing, the trial court understandably believed the sentences had to be imposed consecutively. Appellant raises several issues on appeal, but we will address only one.
While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court decided Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016). In Williams, the Court held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for use or possession of a firearm during a qualifying felony are permissible but not required by section 775.087, Florida Statutes. The Supreme Court stated in Williams that “[generally, 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.” Id. at 993. While the Court frequently used the term “mandatory minimum imprisonment terms” in Williams, it is apparent from reading the opinion as a whole that it meant a sentence imposed under the 10-20-Life statute for an offense specified in that section as qualifying for such sentencing, a sentence which may be greater than the minimum term mandated. See § 775.087(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (“If the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to this section are less than the sentences that could be imposed as authorized by s. 775.082, S. 775.084, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required in this section.”).
Per Williams, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. Thus, in the instant case, no portion of Appellant’s sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon may be ordered to be served consecutively. See also Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983).
The remaining issues raised on appeal are without merit.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. State, 215 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Appellant raises two issues in this direct criminal appeal. First, he contends that it was error under Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016), and Gartman v. State, 197 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), for any portion of his sentences to be imposed consecutively. Second, he contends that it was error for a successor judge to rule on his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and resentence him over his objection. The State concedes error on…
-
Garfield Plummer v. State, 246 So. 3d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…e under section 775.087(2) “‘is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged.’” Walton II, 208 So. 3d at 64 (quoting Williams, 186 So. 3d at 993). See also Gartman v. State, 197 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing, based on Williams, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon where no discharge of the firearm occurred). Within days of the issuance of Williams, Appe…
-
Jakari Okalawon Clark v. State, 208 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…lly found that Appellant possessed, as opposed to discharged, a firearm. See Mobley v. State, 197 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the convictions, but we VACATE the sentences and REMAND for resen-tencing. See Gartman v. State, 197 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). OSTERHAUS and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)