RICKY T. OLIVER, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal reversed its prior affirmance of Oliver's consecutive sentences under Florida's 10-20-Life statute. The court held that while consecutive sentences are permissible when a firearm is discharged at multiple victims, they are not mandatory, and remanded for resentencing on the issue of whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently.
Consecutive sentences under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible but not mandatory when multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously with multiple victims shot at. The trial court's directive that sentences run consecutively was reversed and the case remanded for resentencing on the issue of consecutive versus concurrent service of sentences.
[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[2] A prior en banc decision is superseded by a subsequent Florida Supreme Court ruling that clarifies or changes the interpretation of a statute.
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“If, however, multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that consecutive sentences are discretionary rather than mandatory in multiple-victim firearm cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Oliver was convicted by jury of two counts of attempted first degree murder involving two different victims. The jury specifically found tha…
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 Firearm Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
We previously affirmed Appellant’s sentence based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), which held that mandatory mínimums under section 775.087, Florida Statutes, the 10-20-Life statute, must be imposed consecutively regardless of whether the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm. However, the Florida Supreme Court’s order, entered in Oliver v. State, SC15-1216, 2017 WL 2303265 (Fla. May 26, 2017), quashed this court’s decision in Oliver v. State, 165 So.3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), and remanded for reconsideration in light of Walton v. State, 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016).
At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Appellant guilty of two counts of attempted first degree murder involving two different victims. For both counts the jury specifically found that Appellant discharged a firearm causing great bodily harm. On August 8, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum on each count. At the time of sentencing, Walton I was binding on the trial court.
The Florida Supreme Court has now held that consecutive sentences under the 10-20-Life statute are not mandatoiy but are permissible where the firearm is discharged at multiple victims. “If, however, multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Williams, 186 So.3d at 993. See also Walton II, 208 So.3d at 64; § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the trial court’s directive that the sentence imposed for count 2 shall run consecutively with the sentence for count 1, both counts imposing mandatory minimum sentences pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is reversed and this case remanded for re-sentencing only on the issue of consecutive or concurrent service of the sentences on the attempted first degree murder counts.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016)
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Oliver v. State, 165 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)