Rahming v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rahming v. State

616 So. 2d 1232, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4997, 1993 WL 140112

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 5, 1993·No. No. 92-2204·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s sentences, except we reverse the imposition of the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Because appellant’s offenses occurred during a single, continuous criminal episode, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983); Cox v. State, 605 So.2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s sentences, except we reverse the imposition of the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Because appellant’s offenses occurred during a single, continuous criminal episode, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983); Cox v. State, 605 So.2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Rahming v. State, 616 So. 2d 1232, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4997, 1993 WL 140112 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

616 So. 2d 1232 (Rahming v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related