Case ID: so2d_651/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WOLF, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randel Joshua WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 94-41.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 1, 1995.
    Rehearing Denied March 28, 1995.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Terry Carley, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   WOLF, Judge.

Appellant raises three issues on appeal, none of which have merit, and only one of which will be discussed herein: Whether the sentence imposed upon the defendant constituted a departure from the guidelines without sufficient written reason. We find it did not. See Gipson v. State, 616 So.2d 992 (Fla.1993).

As to count II, appellant received a habitual violent felony offender sentence of life with a three-year-mandatory-minimum, and 15 years without possibility of parole. On counts I and III, he received guideline life sentences with three-year-mandatory-minimums to run concurrently with count II. The sentences in counts I and III would be subsumed by the more stringent habitual offender sentence of count II. As to counts IV and V, appellant received guideline life sentences with three-year-mandatory-minimums, each of these sentences to ran concurrently.

The trial court then ordered that counts IV and V (the guidelines sentence) run consecutively to count II (the habitual violent offender sentence), a procedure allowed pursuant to Gipson, supra. The trial court also ordered that all the mandatory-minimums and enhancements be served concurrently. Thus, there is no violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, affirm.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.