Gregory Azor v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gregory Azor v. State of Florida

192 So. 3d 1255, 2016 WL 3185999, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8837

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2016

Docket4D14-2269

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 So. 3d 1255 (Gregory Azor 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

Gregory Azor v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 1255, 2016 WL 3185999, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8837 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault. We affirm these convictions without further comment, but reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016). Below, the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory- minimum sentences pursuant to this court’s precedent interpreting section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2008) (the 10-20-Life statute). The trial court believed it was constrained to impose the mandatory minimum terms consecutively based on our original holding in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879. (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), quashed by Williams, 186 So.3d 989. Although the trial court was correct at the time, our supreme court subsequently quashed that original holding, clarifying that “a trial court must impose the mandatory minimum sentences concurrently under such circumstances,” because “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, 186 So.3d at 993.

As such, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum terms in accordance with the supreme court’s most recent opinion.

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.

GROSS, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of aggravated assault. We affirm these convictions without further comment, but reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016). Below, the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory- minimum sentences pursuant to this court’s precedent interpreting section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2008) (the 10-20-Life statute). The trial court believed it was constrained to impose the mandatory minimum terms consecutively based on our original holding in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879. (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), quashed by Williams, 186 So.3d 989. Although the trial court was correct at the time, our supreme court subsequently quashed that original holding, clarifying that “a trial court must impose the mandatory minimum sentences concurrently under such circumstances,” because “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, 186 So.3d at 993.

As such, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum terms in accordance with the supreme court’s most recent opinion.

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.

GROSS, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 3d 1255, 2016 WL 3185999, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-azor-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack