James v. State, 84-696
| Decision Date | 25 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-696,84-696 |
| Citation | 462 So.2d 858,10 Fla. L. Weekly 260 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 260 Charles Laverne JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and W.C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Theda James Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
LOGAN, PAUL E., Associate Judge.
Appellant Charles Laverne James appeals his judgment and sentence. We affirm in part and reverse and remand for correction of a sentencing error.
Appellant James was charged with armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of attempted first degree murder, grand theft, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He pled guilty to armed robbery, aggravated assault, attempted second degree murder, and grand theft and was sentenced to the following consecutive sentences: ten years with a three-year minimum mandatory for armed robbery, five years with a three-year minimum mandatory for aggravated assault, ten years with a three-year minimum mandatory for attempted second degree murder, and five years for grand theft. The appellant filed a motion to correct sentence, urging that the trial court had erred by imposing minimum mandatory sentences consecutive to each other where the offenses were committed during the same criminal transaction. The trial judge denied the motion, with the exception of deleting the three-year minimum for aggravated assault.
The series of events leading to the charges against the appellant was as follows. The appellant and two other men, all armed with firearms, entered a bank in Fort Meade. They robbed a bank employee of bank money while holding her at gunpoint and herded the bank customers into a back room. While directing the customers into the back room, the appellant pointed a gun at a man named Mr. Baker.
The Fort Meade Police Department then arrived, having been summoned by a silent alarm system. The robbers saw the police officers, and one announced they were going to have to shoot their way out. The appellant engaged in a gunfight with the police chief; then he and another of the robbers took the police captain's car and stole it.
Appellant contended, both in the trial court and on appeal, that the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences was erroneous in light of Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). The Palmer court struck down the imposition of thirteen consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for thirteen counts of robbery committed against mourners at a funeral parlor. At the same time, the Palmer court specifically held that it did not prohibit consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for "offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places." 438 So.2d at 4.
In this case the prosecutor conceded that the armed robbery and aggravated assault were part of the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castro v. State, 84-1483
...incidents, and consecutive mandatory sentences are permissible. Pratt v. State, 472 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); James v. State, 462 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see Palmer at 4; Whitehead v. State, 446 So.2d 194, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA Finding no merit in the remaining points, we affirm. NESB......
-
Murray v. State
...holding in this regard. State v. Thomas, 487 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 487 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); James v. State, 462 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Finally, Murray contends that the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over parole must be vacated in light of the tri......
-
Connolly v. State, 84-1749
...the attempted murder of defendant's wife are distinguishable from the facts in Wilson, Ames, and Thomas. Our decision in James v. State, 462 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), mandates a different result for the sentence for that attempted murder. See also Castro v. State, 472 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d......
-
Thorne v. State, 85-2705
...(Fla.1986), because each robbery was a separate and distinct offense involving a separate and distinct victim. See also James v. State, 462 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The court's second reason for departure is invalid because it is based on the defendant's prior record and involves facto......