FIDEL G. SOSA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for armed burglary, armed kidnapping, and robbery but reversed and remanded sentencing because trial court imposed four consecutive mandatory minimum sentences when only three separate criminal episodes occurred.
A trial court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences where crimes arise from a single criminal episode; here, only three episodes occurred despite four sentences imposed.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences cannot be imposed where crimes arise from a single criminal episode; sentencing court must count the number of separate criminal t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences where the crimes arise in a single criminal episode.”
Court's statement of controlling law from Palmer v. State regarding consecutive mandatory minimum sentencing limitations.
Defendant was convicted of armed burglary of a structure, armed kidnapping, and robbery with a weapon. The trial court imposed four consecutive three-…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guidelines Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for armed burglary of a structure, armed kidnapping, and robbery with a weapon. We affirm the convictions, affirm the sentences in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred in departing from the guideline sentence because the listed grounds for departure are not supported by the record. We disagree and affirm. See Llabona v. State, 557 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (8-year period of escalating pattern of criminal conduct valid reason for departing from guideline sentence); Sans v. State, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (trauma suffered by victims during brutal home invasion justifies upward departure from guidelines). However, we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in sentencing him to four consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences when only three separate transactions occurred. A court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences where the crimes arise in a single criminal episode. Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). Because only three episodes occurred, we reverse and remand with directions to enter a sentence in accordance with this opinion.1
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
. We find no merit in the remaining issues on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 640 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ed in departing from the sentencing guidelines based on a clearly established escalating pattern of criminal conduct on the part of the defendant. Barfield v. State, 594 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1992); Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986); Sosa v. State, 602 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Llabona v. State, 557 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1990). We equally find no merit in the state's argument that, upon remand, the trial court should be permitted to change the five-year concurrent sen…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Llabona v. State, 557 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)