McClain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McClain v. State

616 So. 2d 182, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1993 WL 96772

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1993

DocketNo. 92-332

StatusPublished

This text of 616 So. 2d 182 (McClain 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

McClain v. State, 616 So. 2d 182, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3675, 1993 WL 96772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to sustain a Neil objection to a peremptory challenge used by the state; and (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error when it imposed two consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for convictions which appellant asserts arose out of the same criminal episode.

We conclude that the reasons given by the state for exercise of the peremptory challenge at issue were race-neutral. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied appellant’s Neil objection. State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984).

The state concedes that imposition of two consecutive mandatory minimum sentences is error on the facts of this case. We agree. Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992).

We affirm appellant’s convictions. However, we reverse appellant’s sentence as to count 3, and remand with directions that the trial court resentence appellant so that any mandatory minimum sentence imposed for that count run concurrently with the other mandatory minimum sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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