Newsome v. State
Newsome v. State
602 So. 2d 1000; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9141; 1992 WL 201981
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Newsome v. State
Opinion of the Court
Newsome appeals the consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for the convictions in counts 1 and 3. Newsome argues, and the state concedes, that it was error to impose consecutive minimum mandatory sentences where the crimes arose out of one criminal episode. We agree. See Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1983) and Hernandez v. State, 556 So.2d 767 (Fla.2d DCA 1990). We therefore reverse only the stacking of the minimum mandatory sentences in counts 1 and 3 and remand for resentencing. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.