CHRIS LEONARD THORNES, 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 vacated and remanded the defendant's sentence for aggravated assault and firearm possession, holding that consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are permissible but not required when a defendant discharges a firearm at a single victim but is convicted of multiple firearm offenses arising from the same criminal episode.
Consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum sentences is permissible but not mandatory in cases where a defendant discharges a firearm striking a single victim and multiple firearm offenses arise from a single criminal episode. The trial court has discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences in these circumstances.
[1] Consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a f…
[2] If multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory…
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 sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged.”
Establishes the core rule prohibiting consecutive mandatory minimums when only possession, not discharge, occurs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Thornes was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was charged with separate counts of aggrava…
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 for aggravated assault and possession of firearm by a convicted felon based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522. (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), which held that mandatory minimums under the 10-20-Life statute must be imposed consecutively regardless of whether the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm. However, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in this ease and remanded for reconsideration.in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So.3d. 989 (Fla. 2016). See Thornes v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680, 2017 WL 2303298 (Fla. May 26, 2017).
In Williams, the Court held that “consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged.” 186 So.3d at 993; accord Walton II, 208 So.3d at 64. But, the Court also held that “[i]f ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Williams, 186 So.3d at 993.
Williams did not directly address whether or not consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were permissible where, as here, the defendant only shot at one victim but was convicted of multiple firearm offenses *412arising out of the same crimmal episode.* However, in Burns v. State, this court read Williams to permit the trial court to impose consecutive sentences in these circumstances. 212 So.3d 546, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“As Burns discharged a firearm striking a single victim and as both offenses arose out of a single criminal episode, consecutive sentences were permissible but not required.”); see also Wilson v. State, 2017 WL 1653435 (Fla. 1st DCA May 2, 2017).
Accordingly, based on Williams, we vacate Appellant’s sentence because the trial court believed based on our prior precedent that it was required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, and based on Burns, we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to impose concurrent or consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Also, as we did in Burns, we certify conflict with Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So.3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding that concurrent sentences must be imposed under section 775.087(2) where a single shot is fired at only one person during a single criminal episode).
Sentence VACATED and REMANDED with directions.
WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wanless v. State, 271 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
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)
- Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Burns v. State, 212 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Javarus Lamont Morgan v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)