LEVI RAHMING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
LEVI RAHMING, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
616 So. 2d 1232
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s sentences, except we reverse the imposition of the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Because appellant’s offenses occurred during a single, continuous criminal episode, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper. Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); Cox v. State, 605 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lifred v. State, 643 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…econd sentencing appeal that the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimums, pursuant to Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), was improper “because appellant’s offenses occurred during a single, continuous criminal episode.” Rahming v. State, 616 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). (Rahming II). Although we implicitly approved of the consecutive mandatory minimums in defendant’s first appeal, we are not precluded from revisiting this issue if the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimums constitutes an…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- COX v. State, 605 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)