JESSE LEE PENN, 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.
Resentencing is necessary because the trial court mistakenly believed consecutive sentencing was mandatory under the 10-20-Life statute, when it actually has discretion.
Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a discharged firearm and sentenced to consecutive mandatory minimum prison terms. The…
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 10-20-Life Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals from his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a discharged firearm and his sentence of two twenty-year mandatory minimum prison terms to be served consecutively. The defendant raises three arguments: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal; (2) the trial court committed fundamental error when it charged the jury using Florida Standard Juiy Instruction (Criminal) 3.6(f), Justifiable Use of Deadly Force (2013); and (3) resentencing is necessary because the trial court believed it was legally required to sentence the defendant to consecutive mandatory minimum prison terms under the 10-20-Life statute, section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2013).
On the first two arguments, we affirm without discussion. On the third . argument, we agree that resentencing is necessary pursuant to Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) (“If ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the defendant’s convictions, but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing for the court to exercise its discretion to order the two mandatory minimum prison terms to run consecutively or concurrently.
*97 Affirmed, in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur,