Zamora v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zamora v. State

547 So. 2d 271, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1858, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4392, 1989 WL 86796

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1989

DocketNos. 88-02730, 88-02731

StatusPublished

This text of 547 So. 2d 271 (Zamora 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

Zamora v. State, 547 So. 2d 271, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1858, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4392, 1989 WL 86796 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Felix Zamora appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of armed kidnapping and the resulting sentences. We affirm.

Of the two issues Zamora raises on appeal, only one merits discussion. Zamora argues that the trial court erred in imposing two consecutive mandatory three-year minimum sentences for the armed kidnapping offenses.

A trial court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for offenses committed during a single continuous criminal transaction or episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). However, in this case, there is no factual basis from which this court can determine whether the two armed kidnappings were committed during a single continuous criminal episode. The charging document is nonspecific with respect to this matter. Further, at the plea colloquy, the trial judge merely stated that there were two affidavits in the court file which recited the factual bases for the charges. These affidavits are not a part of the record on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and the sentences without prejudice for Zamora to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Felix Zamora appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of armed kidnapping and the resulting sentences. We affirm.

Of the two issues Zamora raises on appeal, only one merits discussion. Zamora argues that the trial court erred in imposing two consecutive mandatory three-year minimum sentences for the armed kidnapping offenses.

A trial court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for offenses committed during a single continuous criminal transaction or episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). However, in this case, there is no factual basis from which this court can determine whether the two armed kidnappings were committed during a single continuous criminal episode. The charging document is nonspecific with respect to this matter. Further, at the plea colloquy, the trial judge merely stated that there were two affidavits in the court file which recited the factual bases for the charges. These affidavits are not a part of the record on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and the sentences without prejudice for Zamora to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 So. 2d 271, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1858, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4392, 1989 WL 86796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zamora-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack