Durant v. State
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 16, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-2388 Lower Tribunal No. 12-14823B ________________
Brandon Durant, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.
Brandon Durant, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Brandon Durant, the defendant, appeals the trial court’s denial of his
3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Durant was charged with eleven counts
of attempted first degree murder with a deadly weapon, after shooting into a home
occupied by eleven people. He was charged under the section 775.087, Florida
Statutes (2014) (“10/20/Life Statute”); each count of the information alleged that
he possessed and discharged a firearm. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all
eleven counts. However, the jury found that Durant only possessed a firearm and
did not discharge a firearm. The trial court sentenced Durant to life in prison on
each of the eleven counts and imposed eleven mandatory minimum consecutive
ten-year sentences under the 10/20/Life statute. Durant alleged in his 3.800 motion
that his eleven mandatory minimum ten-year sentences are illegal because they
were imposed consecutively instead of concurrently.
The Florida Supreme Court has clearly delineated that “consecutive
sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm
offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and
a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged.” Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d
989, 993 (Fla. 2016); see also Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60, 64 (Fla. 2016).
Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred when it consecutively sentenced
Durant to eleven mandatory minimum ten-year sentences. We thus reverse and
remand for correction of the sentence in accordance with the Florida Supreme
2 Court precedent set forth in Williams, 186 So. 3d at 993, and Walton, 208 So. 3d at
64. The defendant need not be present when the trial court enters its order
correcting the sentence.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
247 So. 3d 85 (Durant v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.