Webb v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Webb v. State

197 So. 3d 649, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12695, 2016 WL 4431590

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2016

DocketNos. 1D15-1722, 1D15-1724

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 So. 3d 649 (Webb 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

Webb v. State, 197 So. 3d 649, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12695, 2016 WL 4431590 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Ivan Webb was convicted of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted [650]*650felon, and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer — all part of the same criminal episode. Pursuant to section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences based on Webb’s actual possession and discharge of a firearm. On appeal, Webb challenges only his sentences.

The trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for each conviction, concluding that then-binding decisions from this court, including Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), required consecutive sentences. However, during the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court decided Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 994 (Fla.2016), holding that consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in this situation are permissive but not mandatory. Accordingly, because the trial court believed it lacked discretion to impose concurrent mandatory minimum sentences, and because Williams now holds .otherwise, we reverse and remand for new sentencing consistent with Williams. See Henderson v. State, 192 So.3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“[Bjecause the trial court did not have the opportunity to exercise discretion in imposing eonsecutivé mandatory minimum terms, we reverse Appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and WTNSOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Ivan Webb was convicted of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted [650]*650felon, and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer — all part of the same criminal episode. Pursuant to section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences based on Webb’s actual possession and discharge of a firearm. On appeal, Webb challenges only his sentences.

The trial court imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for each conviction, concluding that then-binding decisions from this court, including Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), required consecutive sentences. However, during the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court decided Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989, 994 (Fla.2016), holding that consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in this situation are permissive but not mandatory. Accordingly, because the trial court believed it lacked discretion to impose concurrent mandatory minimum sentences, and because Williams now holds .otherwise, we reverse and remand for new sentencing consistent with Williams. See Henderson v. State, 192 So.3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“[Bjecause the trial court did not have the opportunity to exercise discretion in imposing eonsecutivé mandatory minimum terms, we reverse Appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and WTNSOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 649, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12695, 2016 WL 4431590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack