Jones v. State

190 So. 3d 660, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5538, 2016 WL 1437623
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jones v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9929
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2016·No. No. 1D14-4129·Published

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

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

190 So. 3d 660 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ronald Williams v. State of Florida
186 So. 3d 989 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)