Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 01 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1D15–4331 |
| Parties | Eric Patrick WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
225 So.3d 914 (Mem)
Eric Patrick WRIGHT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CASE NO. 1D15–4331
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Opinion filed August 1, 2017
Rehearing Denied September 19, 2017
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert "Charlie" Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
MAKAR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR; WOLF, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION.
WOLF, J., concurring.
I concur that there is no legal reason to overturn appellant's conviction and 20–year mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm. This case, however, is a classic example of how inflexible mandatory minimum sentences may result in injustices within the legal system that should not be tolerated. I, therefore, recommend that appellant apply for executive clemency pursuant to article IV, section 8 of the Florida Constitution and that the Governor and Cabinet act favorably upon this request.
At the time of the incident that led to the charges in this case, appellant was 24 years old with no prior record and had held the same job for 4 years. The charges arose from an incident where the victim barged, uninvited, into appellant's home. They had been former lovers and shared a child. Appellant asked the victim to leave the residence, and a struggle ensued. The victim was bigger than appellant and continued to refuse to leave. Appellant then drew a gun and fired one shot. It is undisputed that the gun was not fired directly at the victim and was fired in an attempt to get victim to leave. Based on these facts, appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill. The jury found appellant discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense. The trial court, as required by law, sentenced appellant to 20 years mandatory minimum with the Department of Corrections. The trial judge stated she would like not to sentence appellant to the mandatory minimum if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...Grice v. State, 967 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)). The court further cited Judge Wolf's concurring opinion in Wright v. State, 225 So.3d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) wherein he wrote that the defendant not having benefit of the discretionary version of the statute was a matter of ‘bad timi......
-
Owens v. State, No. 1D20-540
...when the offense was committed. See State v. Reininger , 254 So. 3d 996, 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ; Wright v. State , 225 So. 3d 914, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (Wolf, J., concurring); Lamore v. State , 86 So. 3d 546, 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Sentencing following a finding that a probationer ha......
-
McDuffey v. State
...a not uncommon pattern where mandatory minimums and mandatory life sentences are statutorily compelled. See Wright v. State , 225 So. 3d 914, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ("The trial judge stated she would like not to sentence appellant to the mandatory minimum [of 20 years] if she felt there wa......
-
Pappas v. State
...noting "it is well-settled that retroactive application of a sentencing statute is unconstitutional"); Wright v. State , 225 So. 3d 914, 915–16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (Wolf, J., concurring) ("Based upon appellant's bad timing, the only relief that may be accorded to him from this inappropriate......