TERRY LANE HARRIS, 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.
Terry Lane Harris appealed his concurrent sentences for two robberies and consecutive sentences for firearm offenses. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the concurrent robbery sentences but vacated and remanded the firearm sentences for reconsideration under proper legal standards regarding whether offenses constitute separate criminal episodes.
The court held it was not error to impose concurrent sentences for the two robberies since they were committed against two different individuals despite occurring during the same criminal episode. However, the court vacated the consecutive firearm sentences and remanded for reconsideration to determine whether the firearm offenses constitute separate criminal episodes from the robberies or are merely facets of the same transaction.
[1] When multiple victims are involved in a single criminal episode, separate sentences may be imposed for each victim.
[2] A court may impose only one sentence for offenses that are facets or phases of the same transaction.
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“both sentences should be imposed for the robberies since they were committed against two different individuals even though they may have been committed during the commission of the same criminal episode”
Court's holding that concurrent sentences for two robberies of different victims are proper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted of two robberies committed simultaneously against two different individuals, for which he received concurrent 10-year sentences. …
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 Sentencing For Multiple Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Terry Lane Harris, was sentenced concurrently for two robberies committed simultaneously (10 years for each robbery), and consecutively for carrying a concealed firearm and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (2 years for each offense). The total sentences (14 years) being less than might have been imposed for the robberies alone, the question presented is whether the trial court erred in the imposition of the sentences.
We have reviewed the record, read the briefs and requested supplemental briefs of the respective parties, oral argument being waived. We are of the view that both sentences should be imposed for the robberies since they were committed against two different individuals even though they may have been committed during the commission of the same criminal episode. We hold it was not error for the trial court to sentence appellant to two concurrent sentences for the robberies.
The other offenses relating to possession of the firearm appear to have occurred on the same date as the robberies and are by their nature offenses which, under certain factual circumstances, might occur as facets of the same criminal episode; but, the record is, however, insufficient for determination of this issue. We do not overlook the possibility that said offenses may have arisen out of separate and distinct episodes. We think, therefore, that this question should first be considered by the trial judge in light of Cone v. State, Fla. 1973, 285 So. 2d 12. As was stated in Easton v. State, Fla.App.1971, 250 So. 2d 294, . . . where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed. . . . ’ ” and for the higher offense.
Therefore, if the trial court finds that carrying a concealed firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm are separate from the robberies, he may sentence Harris only for the higher offense, to wit: a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. On the other hand if the trial judge finds that the two-count information pertaining to possession of the firearm relates to the assault element of the robberies then, under the authority of Cone, supra, only the concurrent sentences relating to the robberies should be imposed.
Accordingly, we affirm the concurrent sentences for the robberies and vacate the two consecutive sentences relating to possession of the firearm and remand for consideration of the imposition of sentencing only, in accordance with this opinion.
MANN, C. J., BOARDMAN, J., and LILES, J. (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…n v. State, 413 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), affirmed, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1976); Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). See also Green v. State, 496 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Morales v. State, 451 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). . See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196,…
-
Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…o a larceny, the crime then becomes robbery, which is characterized as an offense against the individual. Thus two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences. Harris v. State, 286 So. 2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1973), and O’Neal v. State, 323 So. 2d 685 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); contra Hill v. State, 293 So. 2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). We reject the state’s argument that the Hearn rule was nullified by the addition of subdivision (4) to section 775.021,…
-
Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…s. The appellant hid two separate guns used in assaults against two different individuals. The offenses were therefore two separate offenses, even though the assaults were committed during the same criminal episode. Harris v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 286 So. 2d 32; Trousdale v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 287 So. 2d 721. Appellant next contends that he should have been sentenced to only five years, since this was the maximum punishment provided by F.S. § 776.03 F.S.A. at the time he was sentenced. The courts of…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)
- Easton v. State, 250 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)