Davis v. State, 92-02623
| Decision Date | 03 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-02623,92-02623 |
| Citation | 630 So.2d 595 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2364 Jeffrey L. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sue R. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Jeffrey Davis challenges his sentences for armed robbery and possession of a firearm. He contends that the trial court erred in imposing his three-year minimum mandatory sentence for possession of a firearm consecutively to his fifteen-year mandatory sentence as a habitual violent felony offender as that same sentencing scheme for the same offenses was held erroneous in Longley v. State, 614 So.2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We agree and reverse.
In Longley, the Fifth District held that reasoning similar to that in Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992), controlled its disposition of the appeal of Longley's sentence. Daniels was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to consecutive fifteen-year sentences for burglary while armed, sexual battery with a deadly weapon, and armed robbery committed during a single criminal episode. The supreme court held that the sentences could only be imposed concurrently because the statutes prescribing penalties for those offenses do not require minimum mandatory sentences. Rather, it was the habitual offender statute that required the minimum mandatory sentences and, "as in the case of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence required for committing a felony while in possession of a gun, section 775.084 constitutes an enhancement of the felony prescribed by statute for the underlying offense." 595 So.2d at 954.
We agree with the Fifth District that Daniels requires reversal of the consecutive imposition of Davis's minimum mandatory sentences because they too were not required by the statutes prescribing penalties for the offenses of which Davis was convicted. Accord Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and REESE, THOMAS S., Associate Judge, concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wray v. State, 93-8
...See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1983); Haye v. State, 615 So.2d 762, 767-68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). See also Davis v. State, 630 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Crenshaw v. State, 620 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA We also have considered the remaining issues raised by Wray, and we conclude t......
-
Jackson v. State
...We have for review Jackson v. State, 641 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), based upon direct and express conflict with Davis v. State, 630 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Longley v. State, 614 So.2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Petiti......
-
Jones v. State, 94-3591
...a 15-year habitual violent felony offender sentence for offenses that arose out of a single criminal episode. See also, Davis v. State, 630 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Longley v. State, 614 So.2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA Accordingly, we AFFIRM the convictions, but VACATE the sentence and REMA......
-
Jackson v. State, 93-1479
...run concurrent with the habitual offender minimum mandatory sentences. We acknowledge, however, that the decisions in Davis v. State, 630 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Longley v. State, 614 So.2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), are to the contrary on this We vacate the sentence for attempted ar......