Palmer v. State

¶1Appellant was convicted of three offenses (attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery while masked, and armed burglary of a dwelling) arising *331out of a single criminal episode. The jury found that Appellant actually possessed a firearm during the commission of each offense, and the trial court imposed three consecutive 10-year mandatory minimum terms pursuant to the 10-20-Life statute and this court’s decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), review granted, 145 So.3d 830 (Fla. 2014). ‘ On appeal, Appéllant argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms because Waltonwas wrongly decided.1

¶2During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), that

consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged. It follows, therefore, that a trial court must impose the mandatory minimum sentences concurrently under such circumstances.

¶3Id. at 993. Williamseffectively abrogated Walton’s holding that trial courts are authorized to “stack” mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute even when the defendant did not discharge a firearm.

¶4Williamsis controlling here because, although there,was- evidence that Appellant discharged a firearm during commission of the offenses (indeed, one of the victims was shot twice in the leg), the jury only found that Appellant possessed a firearm during commission of the offenses.2 Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive mandatory minimum terms.

¶5In sum, for the reasons stated above, we affirm Appellant’s convictions, but reverse his sentence and remand for imposition of concurrent mandatory minimum terms in accordance with Williams.

¶6AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.