Case Name: Brandon Lovice ACKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-06-28
Citations: 194 So. 3d 1083
Docket Number: No. 1D14-5196
Parties: Brandon Lovice ACKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.’
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 194
Pages: 1083–1084

Head Matter:
Brandon Lovice ACKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D14-5196.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 28, 2016.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, David A. Henson, Assistant Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Robert Lee, Assistant Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appeals his convictions and sentence. We affirm' the convictions without discussion, but we reverse and remand for resentencing .consistent with Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016).
At the-time1'of sentencing, the trial court was bound by this Court's decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), review granted, 145 So.3d 830 (Fla.2014). The parties agreed below that under. Walton,. the trial court was obligated , to impose consecutive sentences. Here, they argued about whether this Court should reconsider Walton.
While this appeal 'was pending, though, the Florida Supreme Court decided Williams v. State, holding that when "multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, .during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.," 186 So.3d at 993 (emphasis added). Now,- "a trial judge-has discretion to order the mandatory'minimum sentences to run consecutively,- but may impose the sentences concurrently." Id.
Accordingly, while we affirm the convictions, we remand for a new sentencing consistent with Williams, dtiring which the trial court may determine whether appellant's sentences for counts I and'III should be consecutive or concurrent.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.'