TIMOTHY PERMENTER, 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.
Timothy Permenter appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that consecutive minimum mandatory firearm enhancement terms should run concurrently because all offenses arose from a single criminal transaction. The court affirmed, holding that consecutive minimum mandatory terms are proper when a defendant commits separate and distinct offenses against separate and distinct victims during a single episode.
Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are proper in cases involving a single criminal transaction or episode when the defendant commits two separate and distinct offenses against two separate and distinct victims, provided the crimes are separated in time and place. Permenter's motion was correctly denied because it failed to allege or demonstrate that he did not commit separate offenses against separate victims.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences may be imposed when a defendant commits two separate and distinct offenses against two separate and distinct victims, even if thos…
[2] For consecutive minimum mandatory terms to be proper in a single criminal transaction or episode, the crime for which the consecutive term is imposed must be separated in…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are proper in cases involving a "single criminal transaction or episode," where the defendant commits "two separate and distinct offenses against two separate and distinct victims."”
Establishes the legal standard for when consecutive minimum mandatory terms are permissible despite offenses arising from a single criminal episode
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 12, 1991, Permenter pled guilty to attempted murder, kidnapping, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and armed burglary. He received a tot…
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 Single Criminal Transaction Or Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Senior Judge.
Timothy Permenter has appealed from an order of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800(a). We affirm.
On February 12, 1991, Permenter pled guilty to attempted murder, kidnapping, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and armed burglary. He received a total sentence of 20 years incarceration (including two consecutive 3-year minimum mandatory terms for use of a firearm), followed by 15 years probation. One year later, Permenter appealed to this court, which appeal was dismissed in June 1992 as untimely filed.
Permenter filed the instant motion in August 1992, alleging that, because all of the charged offenses arose from a “single criminal transaction or episode,” the minimum mandatory terms could only run concurrently, citing Palmer v. State, 438 So .2d 1 (Fla. 1983). The 'trial court denied the motion, finding that, because Permenter committed two separate and distinct offenses against two separate and distinct victims, consecutive minimum mandatory terms were properly imposed, citing Gardner v. State, 515 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are proper in cases involving a “single criminal transaction or episode,” where the defendant commits “two separate and distinct offenses against two separate and distinct victims.” Gardner, 515 So. 2d at 410, citing State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986). The Gardner court elaborated that the crime for which a consecutive minimum mandatory term is imposed must be separated in time and place from the other erime(s) committed during the episode. Gardner, 515 So. 2d at 411.
In this case, Permenter’s motion alleged only that his crimes occurred during a “single criminal transaction or episode.” The motion does not allege or show that he did not commit, during that transaction, “two separate and distinct offenses against two separate and distinct victims,” under which circumstance consecutive minimum mandatory terms would be proper. We therefore find that the motion was correctly denied, and affirm.
ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Christian v. State, 693 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…BOOTH, Judge, specially concurring. I concur with the majority that Appellant’s consecutive minimum mandatory sentences require reversal under this court’s decisions interpreting State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.1986). Permenter v. State, 635 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Gates v. State, 633 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Gardner v. State, 515 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, I write to express my belief that the law on this issue is correctly stated in Lifred v. State, 643 So. 2d 94 (F…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Thomas, 487 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1986)
- Gardner v. State, 515 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)