JAMES RUSSELL MCCLAIN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the state's reasons for its peremptory challenge were race-neutral, and that imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences was error in this case.
Appellant was convicted of crimes and raised issues regarding a peremptory challenge and consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. The state conceded e…
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 Neil Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to sustain a Neil objection to a peremptory challenge used by the state; and (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error when it imposed two consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for convictions which appellant asserts arose out of the same criminal episode.
We conclude that the reasons given by the state for exercise of the peremptory challenge at issue were race-neutral. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied appellant’s Neil objection. State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984).
The state concedes that imposition of two consecutive mandatory minimum sentences is error on the facts of this case. We agree. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992).
We affirm appellant’s convictions. However, we reverse appellant’s sentence as to count 3, and remand with directions that the trial court resentence appellant so that any mandatory minimum sentence imposed for that count run concurrently with the other mandatory minimum sentences imposed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ZEHMER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure, 664 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1995)…rom former rule 4.210(b), (c), and (d). Subdivision (k) is similar to former rule 4.200(a). 1995 Amendment. The changes made in this rule were to correct deficiencies in the rule noted by the district court’s decision in Hines Electric v. McClure, 616 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). It is intended that these changes will govern the review of non-final orders in the district court from the date of adoption, superseding Hines and the previous rule. RULE 4.161. EFFECT OF APPEAL ON BENEFITS AWARDED (a) Benefi…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)