CHRISTOPHER DESILIEN, 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.
Christopher Desilien appealed his convictions for multiple firearm offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing because a Florida Supreme Court decision issued during his appeal rendered the trial court's mandatory consecutive sentencing interpretation erroneous.
The court affirmed Desilien's convictions, including on the independent act jury instruction issue. However, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based on an erroneous belief that such sentences were mandatory, when in fact they were permissible but discretionary under the Florida Supreme Court's clarified standard in Williams.
[1] Consecutive sentencing under the 10-20-Life statute is permissible but not mandatory when multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously and multiple victims a…
[2] A prior appellate decision that has been quashed by the Florida Supreme Court is no longer binding precedent.
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“when "multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory."”
Establishes the correct legal standard from the Florida Supreme Court's Williams decision that overruled the trial court's mandatory consecutive sentencing interpretation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDesilien was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with a firearm, one count of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, one count of r…
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 Independent Act Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Christopher Desilien appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of first-degree murder with a firearm (counts I and II), one count of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm (count IV), one count of robbery with a firearm (count V), and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle (count VI). Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to give an independent act jury instruction. We affirm on that issue without comment, and thus affirm appellant’s convictions. However, we reverse and remand for resentencing because of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016).
At appellant’s sentencing, the State argued that count II should run consecutively to count I, count IV should run consecutively to count II, and count V should run consecutively to count IV. The State’s argument was based on our decision in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), in which we held that consecutive sentences were required under the 10-20-Life statute for multiple firearm offenses arising from the same criminal episode. Agreeing with the State, the trial court opined that it “appeared” that this court held in Williams that consecutive sentences were mandatory, and in response, appellant’s counsel conceded “[t]hat’s the way it appears to be.” The trial court then ordered count II (life sentence) to run consecutively with count I (life sentence), count IV (life sentence) to run consecutively to count II, and count V (life sentence) to run consecutively to count IV.1
*438While appellant’s 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. Therefore, because 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 mandatory minimum sentences”).
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
Damoorgian and Gerber, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Grant v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Williams v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Joron John v. State, 205 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)