Case Name: Carlton J. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-04-15
Citations: 599 So. 2d 132
Docket Number: No. 90-02444
Parties: Carlton J. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 599
Pages: 132–135

Head Matter:
Carlton J. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-02444.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 15, 1992.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Timothy A. Hickey, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Carlton J. Brown, convicted of two counts of aggravated battery, appeals his sentences imposed pursuant to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). The trial court sentenced him to two consecutive terms of thirty years each, with a ten-year minimum mandatory portion of each sentence, also to be served consecutively. Brown contends that it was error to impose the minimum mandatory terms consecutively as well as to impose the separate thirty-year terms consecutively, citing Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). His Palmer argument is based upon the fact that there is clearly only one criminal episode here, a short but violent knife fight with two victims injured during the fight. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The supreme court has recently clarified the issue whether minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment, imposed pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute such as section 775.084, can be ordered to be served consecutively when the crimes occurred during a single criminal episode. In Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992), the supreme court held that under such circumstances, the minimum mandatory portions of the sentences must be ordered to be served concurrently where there is no distinction in time or place between the offenses. However, where minimum mandatory sentencing is not involved, Daniels reiterates that Palmer has never prohibited consecutive sentences even though the crimes were committed during a single episode.
Accordingly, we affirm that part of the sentencing order imposing consecutive thirty-year terms, but reverse the imposition of consecutive ten-year minimum mandatory portions of those thirty-year sentences, and we remand for imposition of concurrent ten-year minimum mandatory sentences.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
FRANK, J., concurs.
ALTENBERND, J., concurs specially.