Ames v. StateAmes v. State
The defendant was convicted of armed burglary, armed robbery and sexual battery. He used a firearm in perpetrating each offense. His sole point on аppeal pertains to the trial court‘s imposition consecutively of the three-year mandatory minimum sentences required under
Under Palmer, it is improper to impose consecutivеly the three-year mandatory minimum sentences unless the “offenses [arose] from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places.” 438 So.2d at 4. In Palmer, the defendant wаlked into a funeral parlor with a firearm during a wake, ordered the mourners to throw their money and valuables on the floor and
In the case sub judice, the victim answered a knock at the back door to her one-story Gainesvillе home. As she unlocked the door, the defendant pushed his way inside the laundry room, knocking hеr to the floor. He threatened to kill her if she did not quit screaming. He then pulled her off the floor, pushed her into the kitchen and demanded money. In response, she took her purse from the kitchen table, removed $44 from it and handed the same to him. He then started leading the victim through the house searching for more money. She told him that she had no more money but offered to give him her jewelry instead. When they went into her bedroom, she removed some jеwelry from a dresser. Instead of taking the jewelry, he made her remove her clothing and raped her. He then left.
Recently, we had occasion to consider a Palmer objection to consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in Wilson v. State, 449 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (on rehearing). There, the defendant abducted the victim in front of hеr apartment, transported her a short distance in his automobile and then committed sеxual battery upon her. Wilson was convicted of kidnapping and sexual battery. On rehearing, we approved the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive three-year mаndatory minimum sentences on the basis that the two offenses arose from separatе incidents occurring at separate times and places and, thus, qualified under the exception recognized in Palmer. We are unable to reach a similar result in the case at bar for it cannot reasonably be said that the robbery and sexual battery committed uрon the victim at her home “arose from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places” as contemplated by Palmer. It was, therefore, error to impose, consecutively, the three-year mandatory minimum sentences.
Accordingly, the trial court, on remand, is directed to correct the mandatory minimum sentences such that they are ordered to be served concurrently.
SMITH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellee‘s motion for rehеaring is denied. However, we certify, pursuant to
Whether the crimes for which the defendant was sentenced to consecutive three-year mandatory minimum terms pursuant to
Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes , were “offenses [which arosе] from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places” within thе meaning of the rule announced in Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1983)?
We have certified a similar question in Wilson v. State, 449 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
SMITH, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.