RANDY WASHINGTON v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 22, 2023
• Docket: 22-1364
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1364 Lower Tribunal No. F89-34591 ________________

Randy Washington, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michelle Delancy, Judge.

Randy Washington, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1989) (“A defendant convicted

of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment . . . shall serve the

sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or

more of the sentences be served consecutively. Sentences of imprisonment

for offenses not charged in the same indictment . . . shall be served

consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be

served concurrently.”); § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989) (“Whoever, in the

course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which

constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and

adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense;

and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently

or consecutively.”); Boltuch v. State, 95 So. 3d 338, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)

(holding defendant’s consecutive sentences legal even though criminal act

occurred during single episode because act affected two separate victims);

§ 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (1989) (“A person who has been convicted of a

capital felony shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be required

to serve no less than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole . . . .”);

State v. Haubrick, 997 So. 2d 1228, 1228–29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (finding

trial court abused its discretion in dismissing an information “without allowing

the state to correct the scrivener’s error in the statutory citation”).