From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chatman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 15, 1987
509 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

Nos. 86-1809, 86-1810.

June 18, 1987. Rehearing Denied July 15, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


This is a consolidated appeal from separate jury trials. The question on appeal is whether the appellant may receive stacked three-year mandatory minimum sentences for the three separate, unrelated robberies. The robberies occurred at different places on different times and were thus separate and essentially unrelated. We agree with the cases which hold that the mandatory minimum may be imposed consecutively. Wetherby v. State, 469 So.2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Prentice v. State, 469 So.2d 798 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Lightfoot v. State, 459 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We find no merit in the other issues on appeal. Appellant's convictions and sentences are affirmed.

ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chatman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 15, 1987
509 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Chatman v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES STROTHER CHATMAN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 15, 1987

Citations

509 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Campbell v. State

It is evident that the supreme court has approved the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences…