Ricky T. Oliver v. State of Florida , 220 So. 3d 1289 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                      IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
    RICKY T. OLIVER,                     NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    Appellant,                     DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    v.                                   CASE NO. 1D13-4091
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________/
    Opinion filed July 11, 2017.
    An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
    Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public
    Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney
    General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
    ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
    PER CURIAM.
    We previously affirmed Appellant’s sentence based on our en banc decision
    in Walton v. State, 
    106 So. 3d 522
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), which held that
    mandatory minimums under section 775.087, Florida Statutes, the 10-20-Life
    statute, must be imposed consecutively regardless of whether the defendant
    possessed or discharged a firearm. However, the Florida Supreme Court’s order,
    entered in Oliver v. State, SC15-1216, 
    2017 WL 2303265
    (Fla. May 26, 2017),
    quashed this court’s decision in Oliver v. State, 
    165 So. 3d 865
    (Fla. 1st DCA
    2015), and remanded for reconsideration in light of Walton v. State, 
    208 So. 3d 60
    (Fla. 2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 
    186 So. 3d 989
    (Fla. 2016).
    At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Appellant guilty of two counts of
    attempted first degree murder involving two different victims. For both counts the
    jury specifically found that Appellant discharged a firearm causing great bodily
    harm. On August 8, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of life
    imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum on each count. At the time of
    sentencing, Walton I was binding on the trial court.
    The Florida Supreme Court has now held that consecutive sentences under
    the 10-20-Life statute are not mandatory but are permissible where the firearm is
    discharged at multiple victims.     “If, however, multiple firearm offenses are
    committed contemporaneously, during which multiple victims are shot at, then
    consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” 
    Williams, 186 So. 3d at 993
    . See also Walton 
    II, 208 So. 3d at 64
    ; § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat. Accordingly,
    the trial court’s directive that the sentence imposed for count 2 shall run
    consecutively with the sentence for count 1, both counts imposing mandatory
    2
    minimum sentences pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is reversed
    and this case remanded for resentencing only on the issue of consecutive or
    concurrent service of the sentences on the attempted first degree murder counts.
    REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
    WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-4091

Citation Numbers: 220 So. 3d 1289

Filed Date: 7/10/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023