From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 20, 1992
608 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1212.

November 20, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, George A. Sprinkel, IV, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and M.A. Lucas, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


Under the facts presented, we find no merit in appellant's contention that his convictions for robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault and battery constitute double jeopardy. We do agree, however, that the lower court erred in making consecutive the "minimum mandatory" sentences imposed after determining that the defendant was a habitual violent felony offender. Such minimum mandatory sentences must be imposed to run concurrently when they arise from a single criminal episode, as in this case. Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1992); Penton v. State, 605 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accordingly we affirm the judgments but vacate the sentences imposed and remand with instructions to resentence appellant to concurrent minimum mandatory sentences.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 20, 1992
608 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Wright v. State

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Nov 20, 1992

Citations

608 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Scott v. State

A trial court may not impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the habitual felony statute for…