GENE ANTHONY ELSPERMAN, 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.
Petitioner Gene Anthony Elsperman was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to consecutive 20-year minimum mandatory sentences. After the Florida Supreme Court held in Williams v. State that trial courts have discretion to impose mandatory minimum sentences concurrently (rather than consecutively as previously required), the appellate court granted habeas relief and vacated the sentences for resentencing.
A trial court has discretion to impose minimum mandatory sentences concurrently, not consecutively as was previously required by precedent. Petitioner is entitled to the same remedy as the defendant in Williams and must be resentenced in accordance with that decision.
[1] A trial court has discretion to impose statutory minimum mandatory sentences concurrently, rather than consecutively.
[2] A defendant is entitled to relief when a subsequent supreme court decision clarifies that the trial court lacked discretion to impose consecutive mandatory minimum senten…
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 intelligence“the trial court believed that it was statutorily mandated to do so, it imposed consecutive 20-year minimum mandatory sentences for each offense”
Describes the original erroneous sentencing based on what the trial court believed was mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElsperman was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. The trial court imposed consecutive 20-year minimum mandatory sentences fo…
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 Per Curiam Affirmance cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and because the trial court believed that it was statutorily mandated to do so, it imposed consecutive 20-year minimum mandatory sentences for each offense. On direct appeal, petitioner’s appellate counsel argued that the trial court had the discretion to impose the mandatory minimum sentences concurrently, but noting that case law of this court at the time was contrary to this position, requested that the court acknowledge that the issue was then pending review before the Florida Supreme Court. Petitioner’s convictions and sentences were per curiam affirmed, and the court subsequently denied appellate counsel’s motion requesting that as it had done in other similar cases, a written opinion be issued acknowledging by citation that the sentencing issue was pending before the supreme court.
Subsequently, in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), the supreme court rejected the reasoning of the precedent of this court that required minimum mandatory sentences to be imposed consecutively and held that a trial court has discretion to impose such sentences concurrently. As the state forthrightly concedes, it would be manifestly unjust under these circumstances to deny petitioner the same remedy as was afforded the defendant in Williams, and we are therefore obliged to grant relief. See De La Hoz v. Crews, 123 So.3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 132 So.3d 223 (Fla.2013). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, vacate the sentences imposed for the aggravated assault offenses, and remand for resentencing on those counts in accordance with Williams.
PETITION GRANTED, sentences VACATED, and REMANDED for resentencing.
ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zuberlon Lenard Williams v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)….082(9)(a)1.” Id. at 802. Because Petitioner asked for certification of conflict with Lewars, it would be manifestly unjust under the circumstances to deny Petitioner the same relief as was afforded the defendant in Lewars. See Elsperman v. State, 201 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, vacate the sentence imposed for the burglary of a dwelling offense, and remand for resentencing in accordance with Lewars. ROWE, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _______________…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- DE LA HOZ v. Crews, 123 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)