ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

We previously affirmed appellant’s sentences based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), where this court held that “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2)—whether the defendant fires a gun, or only carries or displays it—shall be imposed consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony.” 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).

In Williams, the supreme court held that the 10-20-Life statute does not require consecutive sentences when the sentences arise from a single criminal episode. Rather, the supreme court held that “a trial judge has discretion to order the mandato *852 ry minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.” Williams, 186 So.3d at 993. In so determining, the supreme court noted that “[gjenerally, 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”; however, “[if] ,.. multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is. permissible but not mandatory.” Id. The supreme court did not explicitly discuss a case factually similar to this one, in which appellant committed two gun-related offenses, attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but appellant’s crimes involved only one victim who sustained only one physical injury.

In line with our precedent outlined in Burns v. State, 212 So.3d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), and Wilson v. State, 219 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), we therefore REVERSE and REMAND appellant’s sentences for the trial court to reconsider whether, in its discretion, it wishes for appellant to serve his minimum mandatory sentences concurrently or consecutively. In so ruling, we certify conflict with Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So.3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).