IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
DETARSHA CASTRO NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
BRADLEY, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
CASE NO. 1D14-2626
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed July 11, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Russell Healey, Judge.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
We previously affirmed Appellant’s consecutive mandatory minimum
sentences for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA
2013), 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), and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016).
See Bradley v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S681 (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, 208 So. 3d at 64. But, the
Court further 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.
Williams did not directly address whether or not consecutive mandatory
minimum sentences were permissible where, as here, the defendant only shot at
one victim but was convicted of multiple firearm offenses arising out of the same
criminal episode. However, in Burns v. State, this court read Williams to permit
the trial court to impose consecutive sentences in these circumstances. 212 So. 3d
546, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“As Burns discharged a firearm striking a single
2
victim and as both offenses arose out of a single criminal episode, consecutive
sentences were permissible but not required.”); see also Wilson v. State, 2017 WL
1653435 (Fla. 1st DCA May 2, 2017).
Accordingly, based on Williams, we vacate Appellant’s sentence because
the trial court believed based on our prior precedent that it was required to impose
consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, and based on Burns, we remand for
the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to impose concurrent or
consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Also, as we did in Burns, we certify
conflict with Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding
that concurrent sentences must be imposed under section 775.087(2) where a
single shot is fired at only one person during a single criminal episode).
Sentence VACATED and REMANDED with directions.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
3