Case Name: Tom THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-06-12
Citations: 472 So. 2d 1221
Docket Number: No. BA-154
Parties: Tom THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 472
Pages: 1221–1223

Head Matter:
Tom THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BA-154.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 12, 1985.
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1985.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Thomas H. Bate-man, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
Thomas appeals from the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion alleged that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, contrary to the dictates of Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). We are compelled to agree and therefore reverse and remand with directions to correct the sentences so that the two mandatory minimum sentences will be served concurrently.
Thomas' convictions arose from an incident which began when he went to his victim's house trailer and commenced a conversation with her inside the trailer. He proceeded to pull a gun and shoot the victim several times. While he paused to reload the weapon, the victim managed to escape into her yard. Thomas followed her there and shot her yet again. When her son attempted to come to her aid, Thomas fired at him, inflicting no injury. He concluded this spree by firing one last bullet into the victim and then fled. He was convicted of attempted first degree murder for his acts toward the victim, and of aggravated assault for his shot at her son.
Under Palmer, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for these offenses would only be proper if they were "separate incidents occurring at separate times and places." The State contended below that, because the aggravated assault occurred in a different place (the yard as opposed to the trailer) and at a different time (after a pause to reload the gun) than the attempted murder, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were warranted. Thomas argued that the offenses occurred during a single, continuous episode, therefore, the mandatory sentences were required to be concurrent.
We would agree with the trial court's adoption of the State's argument were it not for the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Wilson v. State, 467 So.2d 996 (Fla.1985). In Wilson v. State, 449 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this Court held that when the victim was kidnapped at her residence, transported a short distance by car, then sexually assaulted, "the offenses involved qualify for consecutive treatment under Palmer." The Supreme Court reversed, finding that "Wilson's offenses occurred during a single, continuous episode. Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are improper." Because the offenses here are more closely aligned in time and place than the offenses in Wilson, we must find that the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences imposed here are improper under Palmer, requiring reversal and remand for resentencing.
However, we certify, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A) (v), that the Court's decision passes upon a question of great public importance, namely; Whether the crimes for which the defendant was sentenced to consecutive three-year mandatory minimum terms pursuant to Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes, were "offenses [which arose] from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places" within the meaning of the rule announced in Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983)?
Reversed and remanded.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.