final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Ross M.
Thomas, Public Defender, and Mark Graham Hanson, Assistant
Public Defender, for Appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for Appellee.
Toland J. Bonner raises three issues in this criminal appeal.
First, he contends that it was error under Williams v.
State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016), and Gartman v.
State, 197 So.3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), for his
sentences for robbery with a firearm (Count 1) and attempted
robbery with a firearm (Counts 2 through 6), to be imposed
consecutively to each other under section 775.087(2)(d),
Florida Statutes (2015), the "10-20-Life" statute,
because the crimes arose from a single criminal episode and
the firearm was not discharged. Second, he contends that the
trial court erred by including a mandatory minimum term in
his sentence for aggravated battery while actually possessing
a firearm (Count 8), because the mandatory minimum term was
not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing. Third, he
contends that the judgment and sentence erroneously labeled
the convictions for attempted robbery with a firearm (Counts
2 through 6) as first-degree felonies. For the reasons set
forth below, we vacate the sentences and remand for
resentencing and to correct a scrivener's error.
January 6, 2015, six friends gathered for a birthday dinner
at Los Rancheros Mexican Restaurant in Pensacola. After
dinner, the friends were hanging out in the parking lot when
Bonner approached them with a firearm and demanded money.
Bonner moved towards the first victim and pointed the firearm
directly at him, within inches from his head, and demanded
money. Once Bonner realized the victim did not have any
money, he moved on. He walked up to each victim and pointed
the firearm directly at each one, except he pointed the
firearm generally into a truck where two victims were
sitting. One victim threw cash on the ground, and another
victim was struck with the firearm. At no point was the
jury found Bonner guilty of the armed robbery, attempted
armed robbery, and aggravated battery. For each of these
counts, the jury found that Bonner actually possessed a
firearm. The jury also found Bonner guilty of fleeing or
attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and resisting
arrest without violence.
trial court sentenced Bonner to twenty years for the armed
robbery and ten years for each conviction of attempted armed
robbery, all to run consecutively. The trial court also
imposed a consecutive sentence of ten years for the
aggravated battery. The court did not mention a mandatory
minimum term for this count during the hearing. The trial
court imposed a sentence of five years for fleeing or
attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and one year
for resisting arrest without violence, to run concurrently
with the sentence of ten years for the aggravated battery.
this appeal was pending, and before Bonner filed a brief, he
filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct two sentencing
errors. The first error alleged was the imposition of
consecutive mandatory minimum sentences of ten years for the
armed robbery and attempted armed robbery convictions. He
argued that imposing these mandatory minimum sentences as
consecutive to each other was impermissible because the
offenses in this case arose from or were part of a single
criminal episode, and no evidence showed-and the jury did not
find-that any firearm was discharged in the course of any of
those crimes. The second error alleged was that the sentence
for aggravated battery with a firearm included a mandatory
minimum term of ten years, pursuant to section 775.087(2),
but the trial court did not orally impose any mandatory
minimum term as part of that sentence. The trial court denied
first issue is whether the consecutive sentences for multiple
firearm offenses are proper. In Williams, the
Florida Supreme Court held that "consecutive sentencing
of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm
offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same
criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not
discharged." 186 So.3d at 993; accord Walton v.
State, 208 So.3d 60, 64 (Fla. 2016) (Walton
II), quashing Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522
(Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I). The supreme court
further held that "[i]f . . . multiple firearm offenses
are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple
victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is
permissible but not mandatory." Williams, 186
So.3d at 993.
there is no dispute that Bonner did not discharge the
firearm. This Court and other district courts have
consistently reversed and remanded cases for resentencing
where trial courts have sentenced defendants to consecutive