Detarsha C. Bradley v. State of Florida

267 So. 3d 1103
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 16, 2019
Docket17-5463
StatusPublished

This text of 267 So. 3d 1103 (Detarsha C. Bradley 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
Detarsha C. Bradley v. State of Florida, 267 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-5463 _____________________________

DETARSHA C. BRADLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Russell Healey, Judge.

April 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, resulting from one criminal episode involving one victim, in which three or four shots were fired. The trial court imposed consecutive minimum- mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (10-20-Life); and Appellant challenged that aspect of his sentence on appeal. Pursuant to Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016), and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016), we remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether Appellant’s minimum-mandatory sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. Bradley v. State, 223 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The trial court re-entered consecutive sentences. After that hearing and while this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court decided Miller v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S426, 2018 WL 4784069 (Fla. Oct. 4, 2018). In that case, the supreme court clarified its post-Williams cases as holding that consecutive sentences are permissible for single-episode crimes only when there are either multiple victims or multiple injuries—neither of which was the case here. Miller, 2018 WL 4784069 at *2. We followed that precedent in Fleming v. State, 260 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), remanding for resentencing with concurrent minimum-mandatory sentences; and we do so again now.

REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender; and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General; Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General; and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Ronald Williams v. State of Florida
186 So. 3d 989 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
Leronnie Lee Walton v. State of Florida
208 So. 3d 60 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
Detarsha Castro Bradley v. State of Florida
223 So. 3d 421 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Fleming v. State
260 So. 3d 1199 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 So. 3d 1103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detarsha-c-bradley-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.