TORRIE O. SMITH, 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.
Torrie O. Smith challenges consecutive minimum mandatory sentences imposed under Florida's "10-20-Life" statute for firearm-related crimes, arguing they should have been imposed concurrently because the convictions arose from the same criminal episode. Although the court agrees with Smith's legal position, it affirms the sentences because Smith failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by raising it in the trial court.
While minimum mandatory sentences under the 10-20-Life statute must run concurrently when convictions arise from the same criminal episode, Smith's failure to raise this argument in the trial court—either at sentencing or in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion—prevented appellate review of the issue. Therefore, the sentences are affirmed.
[1] Minimum mandatory sentences under the "10-20-Life" statute must be imposed concurrently when the convictions arise from the same criminal episode.
[2] A sentencing issue not raised in the trial court, either by objection at the sentencing hearing or in a subsequent motion, is not preserved for review on direct appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“when minimum mandatory terms are required by the 10-20-Life statute, and when the convictions arise out of the same criminal episode, the minimum mandatory sentences must run concurrently”
Establishes the substantive legal rule that Smith's argument was correct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was convicted of crimes involving firearms and received consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, t…
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 Rule 3.800(B)(2) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Torrie O. Smith, challenges the consecutive minimum mandatory sentences he received pursuant to section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), the “10-20-Life” statute, for crimes involving a firearm. Appellant contends that, under the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), and other recent case law, the trial court was required to impose appellant’s minimum mandatory sentences concurrently because the convictions arose from the same criminal episode.
Appellant is correct in asserting that when minimum mandatory terms are re quired by the 10-20-Life statute, and when the convictions arise out of the same criminal episode, the minimum mandatory sentences must run concurrently. See, e.g., Perreault v. State, 853 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, because appellant did not raise this argument in the trial court, either during the sentencing hearing or in his subsequent rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, this issue is not preserved for review on direct appeal. See Carter v. State, 791 So. 2d 525, 526-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“A sentencing issue that has not been raised in the trial court either by an objection at the sentencing hearing or in a subsequent rule 3.800(b) motion will not be addressed on direct appeal.”); State v. Clay, 780 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“In order to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue ‘must be timely raised and ruled on by the trial court’ and ‘it must be sufficiently precise that it fairly appr[i]ses the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds for the objection.’ ”). Therefore, appellant’s sentences are affirmed. We also affirm as to appellant’s remaining issues without discussion.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elozar v. State, 872 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e same criminal episode are forbidden; but if the offenses do not arise out of the same episode, then the trial court has discretion to impose concurrent of consecutive sentences. Perreault; Wilchcombe; Cunningham; Stafford; see also Smith v. State, 867 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Hence, after analyzing the language of the statute and the state of the law at the time it was enacted, the courts are still unable to find legislative authority in section 775.087(2)(d) for consecutive minimum mandatory sentenc…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Redwin Anderson Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- State v. Clay, 780 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Carter v. State, 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Perreault v. State, 853 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Tucker v. State, 853 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)