Newbold v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Newbold v. State

694 So. 2d 871, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6212, 1997 WL 304707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1997

DocketNo. 93-813

StatusPublished

This text of 694 So. 2d 871 (Newbold 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

Newbold v. State, 694 So. 2d 871, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6212, 1997 WL 304707 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

MICKLE, Judge.

Oswald Newbold appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary of a dwelling in which a person was assaulted (Count I— Case No. 91-3912), attempted first-degree murder with a firearm (Count II — Case No. 91-4058), and aggravated battery with a firearm (Count III — Case No. 91^058). We affirm on all points raised and write briefly to address the first issue, to wit: whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive three-year mandatory minimum terms on Counts II and III in Case No. 91^4058, pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Appellant argues that only concurrent mandatory minimum terms may be imposed where the offenses were based on a single firearm and were committed in the course of one continuous criminal episode with no interruption in time and location, even where there were two victims. However, application of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889 (Fla.1997), calls for affirmance under the facts of this case where appellant shot both victims, giving rise to the separate convictions for attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

MICKLE, Judge.

Oswald Newbold appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary of a dwelling in which a person was assaulted (Count I— Case No. 91-3912), attempted first-degree murder with a firearm (Count II — Case No. 91-4058), and aggravated battery with a firearm (Count III — Case No. 91^058). We affirm on all points raised and write briefly to address the first issue, to wit: whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive three-year mandatory minimum terms on Counts II and III in Case No. 91^4058, pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Appellant argues that only concurrent mandatory minimum terms may be imposed where the offenses were based on a single firearm and were committed in the course of one continuous criminal episode with no interruption in time and location, even where there were two victims. However, application of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Christian, 692 So.2d 889 (Fla.1997), calls for affirmance under the facts of this case where appellant shot both victims, giving rise to the separate convictions for attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 871, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6212, 1997 WL 304707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newbold-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack