DETARSHA CASTRO BRADLEY, 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, this court vacates the appellant's consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for aggravated assault and firearm possession because recent Supreme Court precedent in Williams v. State permits but does not require consecutive sentences when a defendant shoots at only one victim during a single criminal episode.
Consecutive sentences are permissible but not mandatory in such circumstances. The trial court has discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive mandatory minimum sentences when multiple firearm offenses arise from a single criminal episode involving a single victim.
[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 rule from Williams v. State regarding when consecutive mandatory minimums are prohibited
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Bradley was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court imposed consecutive mandatory …
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 Same Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
We previously affirmed Appellant’s consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for aggravated assault and possession of a 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 mínimums 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 case and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016), and Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016). See Bradley v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S681, 2017 WL 2302335 (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, 208 So.3d at 64. But, the Court further held that “[i]f ... multiple *422firearm 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 arising out of the same criminal 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, 219 So.3d 931, 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.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wanless v. State, 271 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…d 546, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see also Plummer v. State, 246 So. 3d 506, 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“Under Williams, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are permissible, but not required if there is a discharge of a firearm.”); Bradley v. State, 223 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting Thornes without attribution and finding consecutive sentences permissible when defendant shot at single victim); Fleming v. State, 219 So. 3d 1038, 1038 (Fla. 2017) (consecutive mandatoryminimum sentences permissibl…
-
Detarsha C. Bradley v. State, 267 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016), and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016), we remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether Appellant’s minimum-mandatory sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. Bradley v. State, 223 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The trial court re-entered consecutive sentences. After that hearing and while this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme 2 Court decided Miller v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S426, 2018 WL 4784069 (Fla. Oct. 4, 2018). In…
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)
- Rohbanni Wilson v. State, 219 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)