Rahming v. State
616 So. 2d 1232 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1993
We affirm appellant’s sentences, except we reverse the imposition of the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Because appellant’s offenses occurred during a single, continuous criminal episode, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper. Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983); Cox v. State, 605 So.2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
