holding that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible—but not mandatory—when multiple victims were shot at, but that they are “impermissible ... if the firearm was merely possessed but not discharged”
How later courts described this case
- holding that consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute are permissible—but not mandatory—when multiple victims were shot at, but that they are “impermissible ... if the firearm was merely possessed but not discharged”
- holding that if multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then - 17 - consecutive mandatory minimum sentencing is permissible but not mandatory
- holding that consecutive sentences of mandatory minimum terms for multiple firearm offenses are impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and the firearm was not discharged
- holding that under section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes, “a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
concurring in result.
I agree with the majority that the decision on review should be quashed and the certified question answered in the negative.
I would conclude that the reference to “any other felony offense” at the end of the final sentence of section 775.087(2)(d) is ambiguous. The reading adopted by the dissent is one reasonable understanding of the statute. Dissenting op. of Polston, J., *996 at 996-97.- But it is also reasonable to understand that “any other felony offense” refers to a felony offense other than one subject to punishment under section 775.087(2). This reading is reasonable because the final sentence of section 775.087(2)(d) suggests a dichotomy between “any term of imprisonment provided for in [section 775.087(2)]” and “other term[s] of imprisonment” — that is, terms of imprisonment not provided for in section 775.087(2).
The rule of lenity requires that when a statute is reasonably “susceptible of different constructions” the statute must “be construed most favorably to the accused.” § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the trial court érred in concluding that the statute required the imposition of consecutive sentences fór each'offénse subject to sentencing under section 775.087(2).