James Nathaniel Marshall v. State of Florida, 14-2350

Marshall was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery with great bodily harm (count II), aggravated assault by threat with a firearm (count III), and shooting at or into an occupied vehicle (count VI).
Original sentence: 25 years on count II; time served on count III; 78.1 months on count VI, with count VI ordered to run concurrently with count II.
While the appeal was pending, Marshall moved to correct sentencing error under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2); the State conceded error and the trial court resentenced count II.
At resentencing the trial court imposed a 10-year sentence with a 10-year mandatory minimum on count II and maintained it as concurrent to count VI; the State objected that section 775.087(2)(d) required consecutive sentences.
The First DCA affirmed convictions and the sentence for count VI, but reversed the concurrent structure of count II and remanded for resentencing to impose count II consecutively to count VI as required by statute.

Issue	Marshall's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could keep count II concurrent to count VI after resentencing	Law of the case: court was bound to prior concurrent structure	Section 775.087(2)(d) requires qualifying firearm offense sentences be imposed consecutively to other felony sentences	Trial court erred; count II must run consecutively to count VI under §775.087(2)(d)
Whether resentencing may alter sentence structure after a successful postconviction correction	Restructuring violates defendant's expectation in sentence finality	Court may restructure sentences when correcting errors, so long as constitutional rights aren't violated	Resentencing may change concurrent/consecutive structure; no law-of-the-case bar here

Washington v. State, 199 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (standard of review for legality of sentence is de novo)
Martin v. State, 190 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (qualifying firearm offenses’ minimum terms must run consecutively to other felony terms)
Cunningham v. State, 22 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (trial court free to run corrected sentences concurrent or consecutive to other counts)
Finethy v. State, 962 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (restructuring sentences after postconviction relief permissible absent vindictiveness or constitutional violation)
Hentze v. Denys, 88 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (law of the case doctrine applies only to issues decided on appeal)
State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (discussing limits of law of the case doctrine)