Randolph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Randolph v. State

704 So. 2d 130, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11578, 1997 WL 665904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1997

DocketNo. 94-2740

StatusPublished

This text of 704 So. 2d 130 (Randolph 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

Randolph v. State, 704 So. 2d 130, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11578, 1997 WL 665904 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, we affirm without discussion appellant’s conviction for armed robbery, and his sentence of 25 years in prison as an habitual violent felony offender, subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1993), and a 3-year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1993). However, as the state properly concedes, it was error to order that the two mandatory-minimum sentences run consecutively because both were attribut-. able to conduct which was part of a single criminal episode. Jackson v. State, 659 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1995). (The judgment and sentence form does not, itself, specify that the two mandatory-minimum sentences are to run consecutively; however, that such was the trial court’s intent is clear from the oral pronouncement of sentence and from the document titled “Sentence as Habitual Violent Felony Offender” appended to the judgment and sentence form.) Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the sentence which directs that the two mandatory-minimum sentences be served consecutively, and remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended judgment and sentence specifying that the two are to run concurrently. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, we affirm without discussion appellant’s conviction for armed robbery, and his sentence of 25 years in prison as an habitual violent felony offender, subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.084(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1993), and a 3-year mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1993). However, as the state properly concedes, it was error to order that the two mandatory-minimum sentences run consecutively because both were attribut-. able to conduct which was part of a single criminal episode. Jackson v. State, 659 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1995). (The judgment and sentence form does not, itself, specify that the two mandatory-minimum sentences are to run consecutively; however, that such was the trial court’s intent is clear from the oral pronouncement of sentence and from the document titled “Sentence as Habitual Violent Felony Offender” appended to the judgment and sentence form.) Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the sentence which directs that the two mandatory-minimum sentences be served consecutively, and remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended judgment and sentence specifying that the two are to run concurrently. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 130, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11578, 1997 WL 665904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack