MARK WILLIS MASON, 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.
Mark Mason was convicted of six counts of attempted second-degree murder for firing an AK-47 into a bar. The trial court imposed six consecutive 20-year sentences, believing it lacked discretion under Florida's 10-20-Life statute. The appellate court reversed the sentencing after the Florida Supreme Court clarified in Williams v. State that consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory when all convictions are qualifying offenses under the same statute.
The trial court erred in imposing mandatory consecutive sentences because under Williams v. State, section 775.087(2)(d) only mandates consecutive sentencing where a defendant commits both a qualifying felony and a non-qualifying felony. When all convictions are qualifying felonies under section 775.087(2)(a), consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory, and the trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
[1] Section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, mandates consecutive sentencing only when a defendant commits both a qualifying felony under section 775.087(2)(a) and a non-qual…
[2] When a defendant is convicted of multiple contemporaneous offenses that all qualify under section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes, the trial court has discretion to impos…
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“The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment for any other felony offense.”
The statutory language of section 775.087(2)(d) that the trial court interpreted as mandatory but which the appellate court found was discretionary for multiple qualifying felonies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Mason fired several rounds from an AK-47 rifle into McKenzie's Sports Tavern in Tampa, resulting in six counts of attempted second-degree murder.…
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 Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
A jury found Mark Mason guilty of six counts of attempted second-degree murder for firing several rounds from an AK-47 rifle into the McKenzie’s Sports Tavern in Tampa. At sentencing, the State and Mr. Mason agreed that each count carried a twenty-year minimum term of imprisonment under section 775.087(2)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2012), but the parties disagreed as to whether the circuit court had *121the discretion to sentence Mr. Mason to concurrent prison terms for each of the counts under section 775.087(2)(d). Subsection (2)(d) reads, in relevant part: “The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment for any other felony offense.” After hearing argument from both sides, the trial court concluded that the language of section (2)(d) was mandatory because Mr. Mason had been convicted of multiple qualifying felonies and that the court had no discretion but to sentence Mr. Mason to six consecutive sentences.
Following Mr. Mason’s sentencing, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 992 (Fla.2016), in which the court explained that section 775.087(2)(d) only mandates consecutive sentencing where the defendant commits both a qualifying felony under section 775.087(2)(a) and a nonqualify-ing felony under a separate statute in the same criminal episode. According to Williams, if a defendant is convicted of contemporaneous offenses that all arise under section 775.087(2)(a), a trial court is not required to impose the sentences consecutively. Id. (“Nothing within paragraph (2)(d)’s plain language also requires ... a qualifying felony sentence to run consecutively to another qualifying felony sentence.”). Construing the statute in this manner, the supreme court recognized that if “multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Id. at 993 (emphasis added).
Here, each of Mr. Mason’s convictions for second-degree murder was a qualifying offense under section 775.087(2)(a)(2), and therefore, under Williams, the trial court had discretion to impose the sentences consecutively or concurrently. When a trial court labors under the mistaken impression that it cannot exercise its discretion at sentencing, the appellant is entitled to be resentenced. See, e.g., Kelly v. State, 727 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Rudd v. State, 177 So.3d 1015, 1017-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Colletta v. State, 126 So.3d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court did not have the benefit of Williams at the time of Mr. Mason’s sentencing, and so we are compelled to reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. We affirm Mr. Mason’s convictions without further comment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
KHOUZAM and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D816 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ourt believed that consecutive minimum mandatory sentences were required rather than permissible under section 775.087, reversal for resentencing is required. See James v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D816 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 18, 2018); Mason v. State, 210 So. 3d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). It is clear that at Edwards’s initial resentencing, the trial court believed that it was required to impose the minimum mandatory sentences consecutively. However, Edwards presented Williams to the court in both his motio…
-
Edwards v. State, 252 So. 3d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…court believed that consecutive minimum mandatory sentences were required rather than permissible under section 775.087, reversal for resentencing is required. See James v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D816 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 18, 2018) ; Mason v. State, 210 So. 3d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). It is clear that at Edwards's initial resentencing, the trial court believed that it was required to impose the minimum mandatory sentences consecutively. However, Edwards presented Williams to the court in both his motion t…
-
James v. State, 244 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…citations omitted). Here, it is clear from the record that the trial court believed that consecutive sentencing was mandatory rather than permissible. Accordingly, we must reverse James' sentence and remand for resentencing. See Mason v. State, 210 So. 3d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("When a trial court labors under the mistaken impression that it cannot exercise its discretion at sentencing, the appellant is entitled to be resentenced."). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CASANUEVA a…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Colletta v. State, 126 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Kelly v. State, 727 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Rudd v. State, 177 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)