Martins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martins v. State

227 So. 3d 149, 2017 WL 2180979

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 2017

DocketCase 2D16-741

StatusPublished

This text of 227 So. 3d 149 (Martins 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

Martins v. State, 227 So. 3d 149, 2017 WL 2180979 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Jose Carlos Martins appeals his judgment and sixty-year prison sentences entered pursuant to the 10-20-Life enhancement statute. Martins raises two issues on appeal. We do not address Martins’ unpre-served sufficiency of the evidence argument. However, because the trial court believed it was required to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to the enhancement statute, we reverse and remand for resentencing in light of the supreme court’s decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) (holding that under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, “a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently”).

During sentencing, the State argued that Martins’ three twenty-year minimum mandatory sentences should run consecutively under the 10-20-Life enhancement statute. See § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2013). The State relied on the Fourth District’s en banc opinion in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879, 883-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that section 775.087(2)(d) requires a trial court to impose consecutive sentences for each qualifying offense). The State also disclosed that the supreme court had recently heard argument on review of Williams but had not yet issued an opinion. In an abundance of caution, the trial court continued Martins’ sentencing to wait for the supreme court’s disposition of Williams. When the parties reconvened, the supreme court still had not ruled, and the trial court, presuming that it had no discretion, ran Martins’ sentences consecutively.

On appeal, Martins argues—and the State properly concedes—that because the trial court ordered consecutive sentences believing it had no discretion to do otherwise, his sentences should be. reversed. We agree and accordingly reverse Martins’ sentences and remand for resentencing in light of the supreme court’s decision in Williams. We affirm Martins’ judgment and sentences in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, an.d remanded.

CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Jose Carlos Martins appeals his judgment and sixty-year prison sentences entered pursuant to the 10-20-Life enhancement statute. Martins raises two issues on appeal. We do not address Martins’ unpre-served sufficiency of the evidence argument. However, because the trial court believed it was required to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to the enhancement statute, we reverse and remand for resentencing in light of the supreme court’s decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) (holding that under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, “a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently”).

During sentencing, the State argued that Martins’ three twenty-year minimum mandatory sentences should run consecutively under the 10-20-Life enhancement statute. See § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2013). The State relied on the Fourth District’s en banc opinion in Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879, 883-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that section 775.087(2)(d) requires a trial court to impose consecutive sentences for each qualifying offense). The State also disclosed that the supreme court had recently heard argument on review of Williams but had not yet issued an opinion. In an abundance of caution, the trial court continued Martins’ sentencing to wait for the supreme court’s disposition of Williams. When the parties reconvened, the supreme court still had not ruled, and the trial court, presuming that it had no discretion, ran Martins’ sentences consecutively.

On appeal, Martins argues—and the State properly concedes—that because the trial court ordered consecutive sentences believing it had no discretion to do otherwise, his sentences should be. reversed. We agree and accordingly reverse Martins’ sentences and remand for resentencing in light of the supreme court’s decision in Williams. We affirm Martins’ judgment and sentences in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, an.d remanded.

CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 So. 3d 149, 2017 WL 2180979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martins-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack