Flores v. State, 99-911.
Decision Date | 25 August 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 99-911.,99-911. |
Parties | Castro Jesus FLORES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Castro Jesus Flores, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Simone P. Firley (Ft.Lauderdale), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON, and SHEVIN, JJ.
In December 1979, Castro Jesus Flores was convicted of robbery; aggravated assault (two counts); and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. In January 1980, Flores was sentenced to Life, 3 years minimum mandatory, on the robbery conviction, and to five years (3 years minimum) on each of the aggravated assault convictions, each of the sentences to run consecutively. Entry of sentence on the unlawful possession conviction was suspended. Thus, the three crimes' sentences were consecutive, which is permissible. The three minimum mandatory sentences associated with these three crimes (3 years on each) were also consecutive. Flores argues this was impermissible and entitles him to 3.800 relief.
While addressing the issue of consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for multiple offenses arising out of a single criminal episode, the Supreme Court's statements in State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995), are directly applicable to the issue at hand. The Supreme Court agreed with the Second District's decision, Callaway v. State, 642 So.2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), that resolution of the issue would require an evidentiary determination and thus should be dealt with under rule 3.850 which specifically provides for an evidentiary hearing. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(d). As the court in Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 987-88 concluded:
The point is that the error complained of sub judice cannot be considered without an evidentiary hearing and this makes it a claim not cognizable by a 3.800 motion.
Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1983)(and its progeny) clearly prohibits consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for crimes occurring as part of a single criminal enterprise. See Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992)
. Furthermore case law uniformly establishes that the number of victims is not determinative of whether consecutive minimum mandatory sentences can stand. See Marshall v. Dugger, 526 So.2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(concluding where defendant robbed a Winn-Dixie store, holding a gun on several employees in order to effectuate the robbery, Palmer controlled, and the stacking of the minimum mandatory sentences was an illegal sentence). See also Richardson v. State, 500 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(concluding that where defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, all growing out of a single "stickup," Palmer could be applied retroactively to defendant's sentences, and that the sentences could be attacked by a 3.850 motion, remanding for correction of the sentences to reflect that the minimum mandatory sentences be served concurrently).
However, temporal proximity alone is not determinative of whether consecutive minimum mandatory sentences should be considered illegal. In State v. Thomas, 487 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1986), defendant shot a woman four times in the bedroom of her trailer. While he reloaded his weapon, she managed to get outside to her yard. Defendant followed and shot her again. He also shot at her son, who had come to his mother's aid. He then shot the woman two more times. He was charged with attempted murder of the woman and aggravated assault on the son. The Supreme Court held that these facts showed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henroquez v. State
...required to resolve such a claim is precisely the type of claim that we determined to be time barred in Flores v. State, 745 So. 2d 977, 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), wherein we Here, as in State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1998), defendant's motion attacked the factual basis for the imposi......
-
Brown v. State, 3D15–242.
...and cannot be determined upon the face of the record). See also Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002) ; Flores v. State, 745 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). ...
-
Herrera v. State, 3D01-1066.
...plea agreement, it was not an unlawful sentence and is therefore not subject to collateral review under rule 3.800. See Flores v. State, 745 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Graham v. State, 641 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Defendant's proper remedy would have been to file a 3.850 motion wit......
-
Padron v. State
...he never actually possessed the firearm during the crime required a factual determination in an evidentiary hearing); Flores v. State, 745 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary ...