Jones v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. State

190 So. 3d 660, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5538, 2016 WL 1437623

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2016

DocketNo. 1D14-4129

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 660 (Jones 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

Jones v. State, 190 So. 3d 660, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5538, 2016 WL 1437623 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s conviction without comment, but we reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing because, although the trial court correctly determined based on then-controlling appellate decisions that it was required to impose conséctitive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently quashed one of those decisions .and held that consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. See Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016) (“If ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during ■ which time. multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED in,part; REVERSED, and REMANDED in part.

WETHERELL, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s conviction without comment, but we reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing because, although the trial court correctly determined based on then-controlling appellate decisions that it was required to impose conséctitive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently quashed one of those decisions .and held that consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. See Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016) (“If ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during ■ which time. multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED in,part; REVERSED, and REMANDED in part.

WETHERELL, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 660, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5538, 2016 WL 1437623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack