Potchen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Potchen v. State

241 So. 3d 245

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D14–4336

StatusPublished

This text of 241 So. 3d 245 (Potchen 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

Potchen v. State, 241 So. 3d 245 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Potchen was convicted, after a jury trial, of several offenses including armed burglary of a structure with a firearm (count II) and aggravated assault with a firearm (count V). We affirm as to all issues raised on appeal except one. We conclude that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences on counts II and V. See, e.g. , Walton v. State , 208 So.3d 60, 64 (Fla. 2016) (reiterating that consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if offenses arose from same criminal episode and firearm was merely possessed but not discharged).

On remand, the trial court shall order the mandatory minimum sentences imposed on counts II and V to run concurrently.

*246AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

EVANDER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Potchen was convicted, after a jury trial, of several offenses including armed burglary of a structure with a firearm (count II) and aggravated assault with a firearm (count V). We affirm as to all issues raised on appeal except one. We conclude that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences on counts II and V. See, e.g. , Walton v. State , 208 So.3d 60, 64 (Fla. 2016) (reiterating that consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if offenses arose from same criminal episode and firearm was merely possessed but not discharged).

On remand, the trial court shall order the mandatory minimum sentences imposed on counts II and V to run concurrently.

*246AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

EVANDER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 So. 3d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potchen-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack