Sosa v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sosa v. State

602 So. 2d 989, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8401, 1992 WL 183971

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1501

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 602 So. 2d 989 (Sosa 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

Sosa v. State, 602 So. 2d 989, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8401, 1992 WL 183971 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for armed burglary of a structure, armed kidnapping, and robbery with a weapon. We affirm the convictions, affirm the sentences in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in departing from the guideline sentence because the listed grounds for departure are not supported by the record. We disagree and affirm. See Llabona v. State, 557 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (8-year period of escalating pattern of criminal conduct valid reason for departing from guideline sentence); Sans v. State, 528 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (trauma suffered by victims during brutal home invasion justifies upward departure from guidelines). However, we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in sentencing him to four consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences when only three separate transactions occurred. A court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences where the crimes arise in a single criminal episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). Because only three episodes occurred, we reverse and remand with directions to enter a sentence in accordance with this opinion.¹

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for armed burglary of a structure, armed kidnapping, and robbery with a weapon. We affirm the convictions, affirm the sentences in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in departing from the guideline sentence because the listed grounds for departure are not supported by the record. We disagree and affirm. See Llabona v. State, 557 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (8-year period of escalating pattern of criminal conduct valid reason for departing from guideline sentence); Sans v. State, 528 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (trauma suffered by victims during brutal home invasion justifies upward departure from guidelines). However, we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in sentencing him to four consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences when only three separate transactions occurred. A court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences where the crimes arise in a single criminal episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). Because only three episodes occurred, we reverse and remand with directions to enter a sentence in accordance with this opinion.¹

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 So. 2d 989, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8401, 1992 WL 183971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosa-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack