McCormick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCormick v. State

494 So. 2d 235, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1803, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9401

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1657

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 494 So. 2d 235 (McCormick 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

McCormick v. State, 494 So. 2d 235, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1803, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9401 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction of first degree murder for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment with consecutive mandatory minimum terms of twenty-five years and three years. The three-year mandatory minimum was imposed because the murder was committed with a firearm.

The defendant raises several issues concerning his trial, none of which we find to have merit. However, we do agree with the defendant that the trial judge erred in sentencing him to consecutive mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. Since the mandatory minimum sentences arose from a single criminal episode, we believe that Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), applies here and requires that the two mandatory minimum sentences be concurrent. See also State v. Lane, 486 So.2d 586 (Fla.1986).

[236]*236Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction but reverse his sentence with directions that the mandatory minimum terms be made concurrent.

RYDER and PRANK, JJ., concur.

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

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction of first degree murder for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment with consecutive mandatory minimum terms of twenty-five years and three years. The three-year mandatory minimum was imposed because the murder was committed with a firearm.

The defendant raises several issues concerning his trial, none of which we find to have merit. However, we do agree with the defendant that the trial judge erred in sentencing him to consecutive mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. Since the mandatory minimum sentences arose from a single criminal episode, we believe that Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), applies here and requires that the two mandatory minimum sentences be concurrent. See also State v. Lane, 486 So.2d 586 (Fla.1986).

[236]*236Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction but reverse his sentence with directions that the mandatory minimum terms be made concurrent.

RYDER and PRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 So. 2d 235, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1803, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack