Britt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Britt v. State

200 So. 3d 801, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15054, 2016 WL 5874425

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 7, 2016·No. No. 1D15-2827·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Based on the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse and remand for resen-tencing on Counts I and II in accordance with Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), which held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible but not mandatory where, as here, the defendant shot at multiple victims. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Based on the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse and remand for resen-tencing on Counts I and II in accordance with Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), which held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible but not mandatory where, as here, the defendant shot at multiple victims. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Britt v. State, 200 So. 3d 801, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15054, 2016 WL 5874425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

200 So. 3d 801 (Britt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related