OTIS JAMES WRIGHT, 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.
The court held that the trial judge erred in imposing separate concurrent sentences for two offenses arising from the same criminal episode.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery and using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The trial judge imposed separate, …
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of two separate offenses: (1) assault with intent to commit robbery, Section 784.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and, (2) using a firearm in the commission of a felony, Section 790.07(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. This appeal was timely filed.
We have reviewed the record and read the briefs submitted by counsel for the parties. After due consideration, we find that the grounds relied on by appellant for reversal of the judgment and sentences are without merit. On the contrary, we submit that the record does show that the case was fairly and impartially tried and the verdict of the jury, adverse to appellant, is amply supported by competent evidence.
The matter that does concern us, but is not raised in the briefs filed herein, is that the trial judge imposed separate, concurrent sentences upon appellant: (1) for the offense of assault with intent to commit robbery, six months to ten years, (2) for the offense of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, six months to ten years.
On the authority of the decision of our supreme court in Cone v. State, Fla.1973, (Case No. 42,760, opinion filed March 7, 1973, not yet reported). We have no alternative as we interpret the decision therein but to remand this case to the trial court with directions to impose one sentence only.
It is so directed and ordered.
MANN, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wright, 283 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 279 So. 2d 70. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Simmons v. State, 287 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…rt. HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . See, Hernandez v. State (Fla.App.1973), 278 So. 2d 307. See also, Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 12; Harris v. State (Fla App.1973), 286 So. 2d 32; Wright v. State (Fla.App.1973), 279 So. 2d 70; Davis v. State (Fla.App.1973), 277 So. 2d 300; and Easton v. State (Fla.App.1971), 250 So. 2d 294.…