JORON JOHN, 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.
Joron John appeals his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle. The appellate court affirms his convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing because the trial court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to impose concurrent sentences under the 10-20-Life statute, a discretion subsequently confirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.
The court affirms the convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing. While consecutive sentencing is permissible for multiple firearm offenses committed contemporaneously against multiple victims, it is not mandatory; the trial court has discretion to impose concurrent sentences. The defendant is entitled to resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed it lacked this discretionary authority.
[1] The 10-20-Life statute does not mandate consecutive sentences when the offenses arise from a single criminal episode.
[2] A trial judge has discretion to order mandatory minimum sentences under the 10-20-Life statute to run consecutively or concurrently when the offenses arise from a single…
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“consecutive sentences were required under the 10-20-Life statute for multiple firearm offenses, even though the offenses arose out of one criminal episode”
Describes the prior Fourth District rule that bound the trial court at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant John pursued two men who had repossessed and loaded his vehicle onto a tow truck. He shot at the men and their tow truck. At trial, witnesse…
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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Joron John appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of shooting at or into an occupied vehicle. We affirm the defendant’s convictions but reverse and remand for resen-tencing in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016).
The defendant was charged by information with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of shooting at or into an occupied vehicle. Witnesses testified at trial that the defendant pursued two men who had repossessed and loaded his vehicle onto a tow truck and then shot at them and their tow truck. The jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of attempted second-degree murder and that he actually possessed and discharged a firearm. Each count carried a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years. The jury also found defendant guilty of shooting at or into an occupied vehicle.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed two twenty-year prison terms for the attempted second-degree murder charges, to run consecutively. The trial court stated that it was required by prevailing case law to impose the twenty-year mandatory minimum sentences consecutively. Indeed, at the time of sentencing, the trial court was bound by our decision in Williams u State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), where we held that consecutive sentences were required under the 10-20-Life statute for multiple firearm offenses, even though the offenses arose out of one criminal episode.
The defendant appealed his consecutive minimum mandatory twenty-year sentences. While his appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in Williams and held that when “multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” 186 So.3d at 993. Thus, whether to impose sentences arising from the same criminal episode consecutively or concurrently is a sentencing decision within the trial court’s discretion. Id.
Here, at the time of sentencing, the trial court did not have the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s Williams decision and believed it lacked discretion to impose concurrent mandatory minimum sentences. The defendant is thus entitled to be resen-tenced consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Williams. See Colletta v. State, 126 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing for resentencing where the trial court erroneously believed it lacked sentencing discretion).
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desilien v. State, 220 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…e the record indicates the possibility that the trial court may not have imposed consecutive sentences if it had the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Williams, appellant is entitled to be resentenced accordingly. See John v. State, 205 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding for resentencing because “at the time of sentencing, the trial court did not have the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s Williams decision and believed it lacked discretion to impose concurrent m…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Grant v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Colletta v. State, 126 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)