Case ID: so3d_190/html/0262-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kamarccus Jaleel WEBSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D15-3211.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 10, 2016.
    
      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, Miami, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of one count of battery, one count of aggravated battery with great bodily harm by discharging a firearm, and two counts of aggravated assault by threat with a firearm. We affirm these convictions without further comment but reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016). Below, the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences for the aggravated battery and aggravated assault offenses pursuant to this Court’s case law interpreting the 10-20-Life statute. The court noted that such sentences were “required by law.” Appellant’s counsel acknowledged consecutive sentencing was required but nonetheless objected. Although the trial court was correct at the time, the supreme court subsequently held that consecutive sentences are permissible but not mandatory. See Williams, 186 So.3d 989 (“If ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory rpini-mum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences concurrently.”) (citations omitted). The State concedes that resentencing is proper in this case. As such, we affirm Appellant’s convictions but remand for resentencing, at which time the trial court may determine whether to impose the mandatory-minimum portions of Appellant’s sentences consecutively or concurrently.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.