ROBERT R. MILLER, 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 and remanded Miller's sentences for resentencing. The court held that the trial judge has discretion under recent Florida Supreme Court decisions to impose mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offenses either concurrently or consecutively when they arise from a single criminal episode with one victim.
The trial judge has discretion to order mandatory minimum sentences to run either consecutively or concurrently when multiple firearm offenses arise from a single criminal episode. Consecutive sentencing is not required in cases like Miller's where multiple gun-related offenses involve only one victim who sustained a single physical injury.
[1] The 10-20-Life statute does not mandate consecutive sentences when offenses arise from a single criminal episode.
[2] A trial judge has discretion to order mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively or concurrently when offenses arise from the same criminal episode.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”
Establishes the central holding that sentencing discretion belongs to the trial judge in 10-20-Life cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller committed two gun-related offenses: attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Both offenses involved onl…
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 10-20-Life Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
We previously affirmed appellant’s sentences based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), where this court held that “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2)—whether the defendant fires a gun, or only carries or displays it—shall be imposed consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony.” 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) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016).
In Williams, the supreme court held that the 10-20-Life statute does not require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from a single criminal episode. Rather, the supreme court held that “a trial judge has discretion to order the mandato*852ry minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.” Williams, 186 So.3d at 993. In so determining, the supreme court noted that “[gjenerally, 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”; however, “[if] ,.. multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is. permissible but not mandatory.” Id. The supreme court did not explicitly discuss a case factually similar to this one, in which appellant committed two gun-related offenses, attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but appellant’s crimes involved only one victim who sustained only one physical injury.
In line with our precedent outlined in Burns v. State, 212 So.3d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), and Wilson v. State, 219 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), we therefore REVERSE and REMAND appellant’s sentences for the trial court to reconsider whether, in its discretion, it wishes for appellant to serve his minimum mandatory sentences concurrently or consecutively. In so ruling, we certify conflict with Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So.3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
ROBERTS, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 265 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 2018)…QUINCE, J. Robert R. Miller seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Miller v. State , 224 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with [*458] the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Torres-Rios v. State , 205 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). We have jurisdiction. See art. V,…
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)