History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wright v. State
608 So. 2d 576
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1992
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Under the facts presented, we find no merit in appellant’s contention that his convictions for robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault and battery constitute double jeopardy. We do agree, however, that the lower court erred in making consecutive the “minimum mandatory” sentences imposed after determining that the defendant was a habitual violent felony offender. Such minimum mandatory sentences must be imposed to run concurrently when they arise from a single criminal episode, as in this case. Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992); Penton v. State, 605 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accordingly we affirm the judgments but vacate the sentences imposed and remand with instructions to resentence appellant to concurrent minimum mandatory sentences.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. “

W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Wright v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Nov 20, 1992
Citation: 608 So. 2d 576
Docket Number: No. 91-1212
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.