Newsome v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Newsome v. State

602 So. 2d 1000, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9141, 1992 WL 201981

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Newsome v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3074 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 19, 1992·No. No. 91-02841·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Newsome appeals the consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for the convictions in counts 1 and 3. Newsome argues, and the state concedes, that it was error to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences where the crimes arose out of one criminal episode. We agree. See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983) and Hernandez v. State, 556 So.2d 767 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). We therefore reverse only the stacking of the minimum mandatory sentences in counts 1 and 3 and remand for resentencing. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Newsome appeals the consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for the convictions in counts 1 and 3. Newsome argues, and the state concedes, that it was error to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences where the crimes arose out of one criminal episode. We agree. See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983) and Hernandez v. State, 556 So.2d 767 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). We therefore reverse only the stacking of the minimum mandatory sentences in counts 1 and 3 and remand for resentencing. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Newsome v. State, 602 So. 2d 1000, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9141, 1992 WL 201981 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

602 So. 2d 1000 (Newsome v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related