Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Waters v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 19, 1996No. 95-1247Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBooth, Judge

I concur with the majority that the trial court did not err in departing from the sentencing guidelines. However, I respectfully dissent from the holding that Appellant’s consecutive mandatory minimum sentences were improper. The offenses committed were sufficiently separate in nature, time, and place to justify application of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Ross v. State, 493 So.2d 1015 (Fla.1986); Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986); Parker v. State, 633 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 980 (Fla.1994).

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Murray v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
  2. Parker v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  3. Ross v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1986