Billups v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Billups v. State

219 So. 3d 900, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 2017

DocketNo. 4D14-3130

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 So. 3d 900 (Billups v. State) 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

Billups v. State, 219 So. 3d 900, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8962 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Per Curiam.

This court previously affirmed the denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion with a citation to Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. granted 123 So.3d 1148 (Fla. 2013). In part, his motion challenged the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), the 10-20-Life statute. The Florida Supreme Court has quashed our decision 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). Because appellant’s offenses arose from the same criminal episode and did not involve discharge of a firearm, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were not permitted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentenc-ing consistent with the Florida Supreme Court decisions. The denial of appellant’s remaining claims is affirmed.

Reversed and remanded.

Ciklin, C.j., Damoorgian and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Per Curiam.

This court previously affirmed the denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion with a citation to Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. granted 123 So.3d 1148 (Fla. 2013). In part, his motion challenged the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), the 10-20-Life statute. The Florida Supreme Court has quashed our decision 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). Because appellant’s offenses arose from the same criminal episode and did not involve discharge of a firearm, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were not permitted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentenc-ing consistent with the Florida Supreme Court decisions. The denial of appellant’s remaining claims is affirmed.

Reversed and remanded.

Ciklin, C.j., Damoorgian and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 900, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billups-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack