IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
RUFUS MARCEL ABRAMS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D14-3291
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed July 11, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Michael G. Allen, Judge.
Ross A. Keene of Ross Keene Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
We previously affirmed Appellant’s sentence based on our en banc decision
in Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), which held that
mandatory minimums under the 10-20-Life statute must be imposed consecutively
regardless of whether the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm. However,
the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in this case and remanded for
reconsideration in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla.
2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016). See Abrams
v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680 (Fla. May 26, 2017).
In Williams, the Court held 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.” 186 So. 3d at 993; accord Walton II, 208 So. 3d at 64. But,
the Court also held that “[i]f . . . multiple firearm offenses are committed
contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then
consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Williams, 186 So. 3d at
993.
Here, the jury found Appellant guilty of discharging a firearm in each of the
charged offenses. The offenses occurred in the same episode and involved
multiple victims. Thus, the trial court had discretion to impose concurrent or
consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in this case.
At sentencing, the trial court stated that it was bound by this court’s decision
in Walton I to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. However, the
court also stated that it would not have imposed consecutive mandatory minimums
2
if it was not compelled to do so. Accordingly, because it is clear the trial court
would not have imposed the same sentence if it was not bound by Walton I, we
reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with
Williams and Walton II.
We affirm the remaining issues on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
3