Bradley v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1D14–2626 |
| Citation | 223 So.3d 421 |
| Parties | Detarsha Castro BRADLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
We previously affirmed Appellant's consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State , 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), which held that mandatory minimums under the 10–20–Life statute must be imposed consecutively regardless of whether the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm. However, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in this case and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decisions in Walton v. State , 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016), and Williams v. State , 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016). See Bradley v. State , 42 Fla. L. Weekly S681, 2017 WL 2302335 .
In Williams , the Court held that "consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged." 186 So.3d at 993 ; accord Walton , 208 So.3d at 64. But, the Court further held that "[i]f ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory." Williams , 186 So.3d at 993.
Williams did not directly address whether or not consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were permissible where, as here, the defendant only shot at one victim but was convicted of multiple firearm offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. However, in Burns v. State , this court read Williams to permit the trial court to impose consecutive sentences in these circumstances. 212 So.3d 546, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (); see also Wilson v. State , 219 So.3d 931, 2017 WL 1653435 (Fla. 1st DCA May 2, 2017).
Accordingly, based on Williams , we vacate Appellant's sentence because the trial court believed based on our prior precedent that it was required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, and based on Burns , we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to impose concurrent or consecutive mandatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wanless v. State
...consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are permissible, but not required if there is a discharge of a firearm."); Bradley v. State , 223 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting Thornes without attribution and finding consecutive sentences permissible when defendant shot at single vict......
-
Bradley v. State
...to exercise its discretion as to whether Appellant's minimum-mandatory sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. Bradley v. State , 223 So.3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The trial court re-entered consecutive sentences. After that hearing and while this appeal was pending, the Florida Sup......
-
Fla. Pulp & Paper Ass'n Envtl. Affairs, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
...advantage of one of the later points of entry.6 ConclusionFor the reasons stated above, we reverse the order dismissing the Association's 223 So.3d 421rule challenge petition as untimely and remand for consideration of the petition on its merits.REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings......
-
Judgment and sentence
...at only one shot at one victim, but was convicted of multiple firearm offenses arising out of same criminal episode. Bradley v. State, 223 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and felony possession of a firearm, and sentenced to consecutive mandatory minim......