Charlemagne v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Charlemagne v. State

185 So. 3d 540, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 102, 2016 WL 67303

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 2016

Docket13-2803 & 13-2786

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 So. 3d 540 (Charlemagne 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

Charlemagne v. State, 185 So. 3d 540, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 102, 2016 WL 67303 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

Linaker Charlemagne appeals his conviction and sentence of one count of first-degree murder with a firearm causing death, and a'second' of 'attempted first- *541 degree murder with a firearm causing great bodily harm. Pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3 of the Florida Statutes, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment for life, with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years on each count, the minimum-mandatory portions also to run concurrently. The State cross-appeals on the basis -that section 775.087(2)(d) requires that the minimum mandatory portions of the two sentences must be imposed consecutively. •

We find no merit in the points raised by the appellant on his appeal and affirm the conviction without discussion. " At the same time, we find the trial court had a mandatory obligation under section 775.087(2)(d) of the Florida Statutes (2014), to impose the minimum mandatory sentences consecutively in this case. Morgan v. State, 137 So.3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (stating that section 775.087(2) requires “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2) — whether the defendant fires a gun or only carries or displays it — shall be imposed consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony”); 1 see also Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (en banc); Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. granted, 145 So.3d 830 (Fla.2014). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the sentences in this case with the direction they be corrected to recite that the minimum mandatory sentences will run consecutively. Given the mandatory non-discretionary nature of the resentenc-ing proceeding, the defendant need not be present for this purpose.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, with directions.

1

. The trial judge did not have this opinion at the time he sentenced the defendant.

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

SHEPHERD, J.

Linaker Charlemagne appeals his conviction and sentence of one count of first-degree murder with a firearm causing death, and a'second' of 'attempted first- *541 degree murder with a firearm causing great bodily harm. Pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)3 of the Florida Statutes, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment for life, with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years on each count, the minimum-mandatory portions also to run concurrently. The State cross-appeals on the basis -that section 775.087(2)(d) requires that the minimum mandatory portions of the two sentences must be imposed consecutively. •

We find no merit in the points raised by the appellant on his appeal and affirm the conviction without discussion. " At the same time, we find the trial court had a mandatory obligation under section 775.087(2)(d) of the Florida Statutes (2014), to impose the minimum mandatory sentences consecutively in this case. Morgan v. State, 137 So.3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (stating that section 775.087(2) requires “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2) — whether the defendant fires a gun or only carries or displays it — shall be imposed consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony”); 1 see also Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (en banc); Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. granted, 145 So.3d 830 (Fla.2014). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the sentences in this case with the direction they be corrected to recite that the minimum mandatory sentences will run consecutively. Given the mandatory non-discretionary nature of the resentenc-ing proceeding, the defendant need not be present for this purpose.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, with directions.

1

. The trial judge did not have this opinion at the time he sentenced the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 3d 540, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 102, 2016 WL 67303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlemagne-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack