YASMANY NOA, 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.
The court held that while the trial court was not required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the clarified statute, any error in doing so was harmless on this record.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are permissible, but not required, when sentences arise from a single criminal episode under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statut…
[2] A trial court's error in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences when not required by statute is harmless if the same sentence would have been imposed regardless…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of attempted first degree murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle, and received consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. …
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, Yasmany Noa, appeals his convictions for three counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle. He also appeals the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the 10-20-Life statute on the three counts of attempted first degree murder.1 We affirm, *1005and write only to address the sentencing issue.
The Florida Supreme Court recently held that under the plain language of section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, “consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are not required, but are permissible, if the sentences arise from a single criminal episode.” Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 994 (Fla.2016). The Florida Supreme Court thus quashed this court’s contrary decision in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which held that a trial judge was required to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to section 775.087(2)(d) when the sentences arise from one criminal episode.
Under the Florida Supreme Court’s Williams decision, the trial court was not required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under section 775.087(2)(d). However, we find that any error by the trial court in following this court’s subsequently-quashed decision in Williams was harmless on this record.
On direct appeal from a sentence, the test for harmless error is whether the same sentence would have been imposed. See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 112, 116 (Fla.2005). Here, based on the trial court’s comments at sentencing, we conclude that the same sentences would have been imposed irrespective of this court’s decision in Williams. Any error was therefore harmless.
Affirmed.
TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., and KEYSER, JANIS BRUSTARES, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreno v. State, 266 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…. State, 811 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the court’s comments during sentencing establish that its sentence would have been the same with or without its consideration of the extra .2 points for the driver’s license offense, see Noa v. State, 199 So. 3d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (court’s comments during sentencing established that scoresheet error was harmless). Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s sentence, but remand for the entry of a corrected scoresheet. Affirmed and remanded. WARNER and LEVIN…
-
Schultz v. State, 289 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…t stated that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence based on this court’s mandate, any error is harmless. “On direct appeal from a sentence, the test for harmless error is whether the same sentence would have been imposed.” Noa v. State, 199 So. 3d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). In this case, the trial court acknowledged having reviewed the pro se motion for downward departure and expressly stated that even if it could impose a departure sentence, “this is not a case in which I would downwardly d…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)
- Grant v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Williams v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)