Mickael Jackson a/k/a Michael Jackson v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mickael Jackson a/k/a Michael Jackson v. State of Florida

180 So. 3d 226, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18804, 2015 WL 9008779

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2015

Docket4D14-4918

StatusPublished

This text of 180 So. 3d 226 (Mickael Jackson a/k/a Michael Jackson v. State of Florida) 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

Mickael Jackson a/k/a Michael Jackson v. State of Florida, 180 So. 3d 226, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18804, 2015 WL 9008779 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled to charges of armed carjacking and robbery with a firearm, which occurred on the same date and involved the same victim. Each offense carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. See § 775.087(2)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2014). The trial court imposed consecutive sentences.

Section 775.087(2)(d), commonly known as the 10-20-Life statute, provides:

It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, *227 display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively'to any other■ term■ of imprisonment, imposed for any other felony offense.

(emphasis added).

This court decided in an en banc decision that the plain language of this statute mandates the imposition of consecutive sentences. See Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (en banc) (finding the plain language of section 775.087(2)(d) required imposing consecutive sentences'where the defendant committed four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm against four victims). Although the instant case involves one victim, nothing in the plato language of the statute indicates that it applies only where more than one victim is involved. As in Williams, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

Does section 775.087(2)(d)’s statement that “The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this.subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense” require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from one criminal episode?

Id. at 880.

Affirmed; question certified.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled to charges of armed carjacking and robbery with a firearm, which occurred on the same date and involved the same victim. Each offense carried a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. See § 775.087(2)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2014). The trial court imposed consecutive sentences.

Section 775.087(2)(d), commonly known as the 10-20-Life statute, provides:

It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, *227 display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively'to any other■ term■ of imprisonment, imposed for any other felony offense.

(emphasis added).

This court decided in an en banc decision that the plain language of this statute mandates the imposition of consecutive sentences. See Williams v. State, 125 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (en banc) (finding the plain language of section 775.087(2)(d) required imposing consecutive sentences'where the defendant committed four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm against four victims). Although the instant case involves one victim, nothing in the plato language of the statute indicates that it applies only where more than one victim is involved. As in Williams, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

Does section 775.087(2)(d)’s statement that “The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this.subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense” require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from one criminal episode?

Id. at 880.

Affirmed; question certified.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 So. 3d 226, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18804, 2015 WL 9008779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mickael-jackson-aka-michael-jackson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack