Lumpkin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lumpkin v. State

210 So. 3d 722, 2017 WL 486992, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1441

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 7, 2017·No. CASE NO. 1D15-3431·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Based on the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse and remand for resen-tencing in accordance with Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016), which held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible, but not mandatory, where, as here, the defendant shot at multiple victims. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Based on the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse and remand for resen-tencing in accordance with Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016), which held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible, but not mandatory, where, as here, the defendant shot at multiple victims. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.

Lumpkin v. State, 210 So. 3d 722, 2017 WL 486992, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1441 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

210 So. 3d 722 (Lumpkin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related