Ahmad Gary Sheaffers v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ahmad Gary Sheaffers v. State of Florida

199 So. 3d 569, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14020, 2016 WL 4992427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 2016

Docket1D15-3949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 So. 3d 569 (Ahmad Gary Sheaffers v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmad Gary Sheaffers v. State of Florida, 199 So. 3d 569, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14020, 2016 WL 4992427 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of one count of shooting at, into or within a building; one count of shooting or discharging a firearm from a vehicle; and two counts of aggravated assault by threat with firearm. As to the aggravated assaults, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant actually fired shots at both victims. At the time Appellant was sentenced, prevailing case law required the trial court to impose consecutively the two 20-year mandatory minimums for the aggravated assaults.

Appellant does not challenge his convictions on appeal, but instead raises the issue of whether the mandatory portions of his sentence were required to be imposed consecutively. While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court released its opinion in Williams v. State, holding that when “multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla.2016). The supreme court reasoned that whether to impose sentences arising from the same criminal episode consecutively or concurrently was well within the sentencing judge's traditional discretionary function. Id,

Accordingly, while we affirm Appellant’s convictions, we reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with the direction set out in Williams.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of one count of shooting at, into or within a building; one count of shooting or discharging a firearm from a vehicle; and two counts of aggravated assault by threat with firearm. As to the aggravated assaults, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant actually fired shots at both victims. At the time Appellant was sentenced, prevailing case law required the trial court to impose consecutively the two 20-year mandatory minimums for the aggravated assaults.

Appellant does not challenge his convictions on appeal, but instead raises the issue of whether the mandatory portions of his sentence were required to be imposed consecutively. While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court released its opinion in Williams v. State, holding that when “multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla.2016). The supreme court reasoned that whether to impose sentences arising from the same criminal episode consecutively or concurrently was well within the sentencing judge's traditional discretionary function. Id,

Accordingly, while we affirm Appellant’s convictions, we reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with the direction set out in Williams.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 3d 569, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14020, 2016 WL 4992427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmad-gary-sheaffers-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack