Lanham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lanham v. State

60 So. 3d 532, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6057, 2011 WL 1601337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2011

DocketNo. 1D09-5299

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 So. 3d 532 (Lanham 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

Lanham v. State, 60 So. 3d 532, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6057, 2011 WL 1601337 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

We reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for appellant’s two convictions, for assaulting two victims with a firearm, which arose out of the same criminal episode. Appellant displayed, but never fired, his weapon. See State v. Sousa, 903 So.2d 923, 926 (Fla.2005); State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889, 890-91 (Fla.1997). In addition, there was an insufficient temporal or spatial break to constitute two separate criminal episodes. See Perry v. State, 973 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Roberts v. State, 990 So.2d 671, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Irizarry v. State, 946 So.2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Appellant need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting his sentences.

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of corrected order.

PADOVANO and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, J.

We reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for appellant’s two convictions, for assaulting two victims with a firearm, which arose out of the same criminal episode. Appellant displayed, but never fired, his weapon. See State v. Sousa, 903 So.2d 923, 926 (Fla.2005); State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889, 890-91 (Fla.1997). In addition, there was an insufficient temporal or spatial break to constitute two separate criminal episodes. See Perry v. State, 973 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Roberts v. State, 990 So.2d 671, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Irizarry v. State, 946 So.2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Appellant need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting his sentences.

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of corrected order.

PADOVANO and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 So. 3d 532, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6057, 2011 WL 1601337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanham-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack