Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mattox v. State

Florida Court of Appeals, First District

July 22, 2019

Gregory L. Mattox Jr., Appellant,
v.
State of Florida, Appellee.

         Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

          On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

          Matthew R. McLain of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant.

          Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

          Lewis, J.

         Appellant, Gregory L. Mattox, Jr., appeals his judgment and sentences for two counts of armed robbery, raising three arguments on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred in finding that it was required to run Appellant's twenty-five-year sentences on the armed robbery offenses consecutively to his fifteen-year sentence in his violation of probation ("VOP") case as opposed to running only his two minimum mandatory ten-year terms on the armed robbery offenses consecutively to the VOP sentence. For the following reasons, we reverse Appellant's sentences and remand for resentencing.

         Factual History

         The State charged Appellant with two counts of armed robbery, which allegedly occurred in June of 2007. Appellant was found guilty in 2009. The trial court sentenced him on both counts to "25 years Florida State Prison, with a 10 year minimum mandatory," with the sentences to run concurrently. These sentences were to run concurrently with a VOP case in which Appellant was sentenced at the same time to fifteen years' imprisonment. We subsequently reversed Appellant's armed robbery convictions based upon a trial error and remanded for further proceedings. See Mattox v. State, 56 So.3d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

         On retrial, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged, specifically finding that he carried and possessed a firearm during the commission of the robberies. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor requested a thirty-five-year sentence. The trial court stated, "The minimum mandatories have to run consecutive, as I understand it." After affirmatively responding, the prosecutor stated, "The min mans are required to run consecutive to each other and to any other sentence that's imposed." The trial court later set forth:

I'm going to adjudicate you guilty of each of those offenses and sentence you on each count to 25 years Florida State Prison, with the required 10 year minimum mandatory sentences as to each count and the 10 year minimum mandatory sentences will run consecutive, as they are required to do under the law, and pursuant to Section 775.087 of Section (3)d, run consecutive to the 15 years that you received in your violation of probation case . . . .

         In response to the prosecutor's question of whether the court was running each count consecutively, the trial court stated, "The counts are not running consecutive to each other. The minimum mandatories I'm running consecutive to each other, but I'm running that full sentence consecutive to the violation of probation." When the prosecutor asked, "So 40 years with a 20 year minimum mandatory, 25 with a 15," the court replied, "Yes."

         While his appeal was pending, Appellant filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing Error, arguing that the trial court erred in running the ten-year minimum mandatory terms consecutively to one another and in running the twenty-five-year sentences, as opposed to just the minimum mandatory terms, consecutively to the fifteen-year VOP sentence. In the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Correct Sentencing Errors, the trial court agreed with Appellant's first argument and ordered the clerk to enter an amended judgment and sentence to "reflect that the ten-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for Counts One and Two will run concurrently."

         As to what it considered ground two of Appellant's motion, the trial court set forth:

Defendant contends the Court, in determining it had no discretion, imposed an illegal sentence in ordering his sentences in the instant case to run consecutively to his fifteen-year sentence . . . . Alternatively, Defendant contends the Court, in determining it had no discretion, imposed an illegal sentence in ordering his sentences in the instant case, as opposed to only the ten-year ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.