John Henry Meador v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

John Henry Meador v. State of Florida

187 So. 3d 1283, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5541, 2016 WL 1436510

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket1D14-4314

StatusPublished

This text of 187 So. 3d 1283 (John Henry Meador 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

John Henry Meador v. State of Florida, 187 So. 3d 1283, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5541, 2016 WL 1436510 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Henry Meador, raises two issues on appeal, challenging his judgment and five consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for five counts of aggravated assault with actual possession of a firearm, arising from a single criminal episode. We affirm the first issue without comment, and write only to address Mea-dor’s assertion that the trial court erroneously. determined it was required under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2013), to impose the mandatory minimum sentences consecutively.

On March 3, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Williams v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S73, 186 So.3d 989, 2016 WL 825242 (Fla. Mar. 3, 2016), addressing whether section 775.087(2)(d) requires consecutive sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode. The court answered the question in the negative, holding that if the defendant discharges the firearm, consecutive sentences are permissible but not mandatory, Id. at S74. However, the court held that wheré a defendant does not discharge the firearm, the mandatory minimum sentences must be imposed concurrently. Id. Here, Mea-dor was charged and convicted for five counts of aggravated assault wherein he displayed, but did not discharge a firearm. Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate Meador’s consecutive sentences and remand for resentencing consistent -with this opinion. ' ..

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur. „

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John Henry Meador, raises two issues on appeal, challenging his judgment and five consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for five counts of aggravated assault with actual possession of a firearm, arising from a single criminal episode. We affirm the first issue without comment, and write only to address Mea-dor’s assertion that the trial court erroneously. determined it was required under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2013), to impose the mandatory minimum sentences consecutively.

On March 3, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Williams v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S73, 186 So.3d 989, 2016 WL 825242 (Fla. Mar. 3, 2016), addressing whether section 775.087(2)(d) requires consecutive sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode. The court answered the question in the negative, holding that if the defendant discharges the firearm, consecutive sentences are permissible but not mandatory, Id. at S74. However, the court held that wheré a defendant does not discharge the firearm, the mandatory minimum sentences must be imposed concurrently. Id. Here, Mea-dor was charged and convicted for five counts of aggravated assault wherein he displayed, but did not discharge a firearm. Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate Meador’s consecutive sentences and remand for resentencing consistent -with this opinion. ' ..

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur. „

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 3d 1283, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5541, 2016 WL 1436510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-henry-meador-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack