Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

"assumed to be appropriate for the offender." § 921.0016(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). The Legislature

agree with the trial court's decision.[9] Section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1995), addresses departure

fifteen days in which to file written findings. See § 921.0016, Fla. Stat. (1993). [3] The language in Whitfield

provision in Section 261, Criminal Procedure Act (Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, 1941, that a defendant "convicted

Furton—individually is a valid reason for departure. See § 921.0016(1)(b), (l), Fla. Stat. (1997). [76] The jury's

...which provides or regulates the steps by which one who violates a criminal statute is punished. State v. Garcia, 229 So.2d 236, 238 (Fla. 1969) (citation omitted). This distinction was later addressed in Benyard to resolve the conflicting wording in section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1973), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.722 concerning the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences....

authority under the sentencing guidelines, section 921.0016(4)(f), to impose a downward departure sentence

...effect on the release date nor does it affect the legislative grant of authority to the judiciary to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. The legislature has authorized concurrent and consecutive sentences in accordance with the provisions of Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1973)....

...ate offense not charged in the indictment or information is consecutive to a previously imposed sentence when the sentencing court is silent. We recognize direct conflict exists between Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.722, adopted February 1, 1973, and Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1973)....

...f *476 prison sentences, and we have applied Brumit retroactively in order to accomplish that purpose. Leaving Rule 3.722 in force would result in confusion and two alternative means of sentence computation because of the contention that it repealed Section 921.16 effective February 1, 1973....

...This contention is without merit. From the record before us, the sentences in issue were for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information and the sentencing court did not direct that they be served concurrently. Under these facts, the provisions of Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1973), require the sentence for breaking and entering to be consecutive to the sentence imposed for manslaughter....

...[3] Credits for time spent in jail before sentencing and before hospitalization were granted by the district court and are not in controversy on review here. [4] In fact, both the rules and statutes of this state have contemplated the imposition either of consecutive or concurrent sentences as to each. See § 921.16, Fla....

question of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 921.0016(3)(J), FLORIDA STATUTES (1993), MAKES "VULNERABILITY

0014(2) and 921.001(5) in pari materia with section 921.0016. The various subsections of 921.0016 provide

...es and remand for imposition of life sentences, without eligibility for parole for twenty-five years, on each of the two first-degree murder convictions. The trial judge has the discretion to impose these sentences consecutively or concurrently. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...The trial court did not specify how the overall term imposed in case 94-1592 related to the sentence for the escape charge in case number 90-5611, i.e., whether it was to be served consecutive to or concurrent with his sentence following his violation of probation. However, pursuant to section 921.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (1995), [2] because the trial court did not make a specification, the overall 127.7-month sentence was automatically structured to run consecutive to the four and one-half years' prison sentence for the violation of probation for the escape charge in case number 90-5611....

...unforfeited gain time for false imprisonment. Again, because the court did not direct that the sentence in case number 94-1592 was to run concurrent to the sentence in case number 90-5611, the sentence was structured to run consecutively pursuant to section 921.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (1997)....

...DOC time and any and all unforfeited gain time. Again, as the court did not direct that the sentence in case number 94-1592 was to run concurrent with the sentence in case number 90-5611, the sentence was structured to run consecutively pursuant to section 921.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (1998)....

...*492 PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The record on appeal indicates that the State elected not to prosecute the resisting a merchant without violence charge, the petty theft charge, and one count of resisting an officer with violence. [2] Section 921.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (1995) provides: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the sentences o...

an unward or downward departure sentence. See § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995)("A written transcription

...tion in the state prison. It is further contended that the sentence in Case 1941, having been made to run concurrently with the sentence in Case 1940, has been completed. We think this question is answered contrary to the contention of petitioner by Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the effect of which is that sentences for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information must be served consecutively unless the court expressly requires that they, or at least some of them, be served concurrently. Cases that apparently point to a different conclusion were decided before the enactment of Section 921.16, supra....

the sentencing guidelines then in effect. See § 921.0016. Accordingly, if the offenses for which Carpenter

...As we have construed the legal effect of the judgment and sentence of September 22, 1942, no good purpose could be served by ordering thé petitioner returned to Escambia County for the imposition of a new sentence with the words above referred to eliminated. Respondent calls our attention to Section 921.16, Florida Statutes 1941, which provides that “Sentences for imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they or some of them shall b...

..., writ, or other record so corrected, is well settled." The corrected record of petitioner's eight-months sentence is silent as to when the eight-month sentence should begin to run and is thus controlled by the following provision of Florida Statute § 921.16, F.S.A.: "* * * Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they or some of them be served concurrently." Accordingly the alternative writ is discharged and the petition dismissed....

in the community. Id. at 3. . See generally § 921.0016, Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701, 3

...On appeal, the court rejected Branam's argument that only the count for which he did not receive the statutory maximum was remanded for resentencing. Noting, however, that the trial judge believed that he had no discretion but to impose consecutive sentences, the court perceived a conflict between the guidelines and section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987), which authorizes the imposition of either concurrent or consecutive sentences....

findings and grounds for the departure sentence. Section 921.0016(4)(j) sets out three mitigating circumstances

door cycle of drugs and crime. [6] Former section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), repealed

...was consecutive to the Miami-Dade sentences, explaining that the two cases were unrelated and that the trial court sentencing Ransone on the Broward charges did not indicate that the sentence would be concurrent with any other sentence. Id. (citing § 921.16(1), Fla....

...The Fourth District also certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Tharpe, which came to an opposite conclusion based on substantially similar facts. See id. at 448 (explaining conflict with Tharpe, 744 So.2d 1256). II. ANALYSIS Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (2004), sets forth the parameters for how the running of a sentence is calculated, including how pre-sentence jail-time credit is awarded. Section 921.161(1) provides, in its entirety, as follows: "A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence....

...e." (Emphasis added.) While establishing that a defendant is entitled to credit for presentence jail time, the statute does not distinguish between concurrent and consecutive sentences, and no other statute is on point. In Daniels, we clarified that section 921.161(1) applies differently to concurrent *694 than consecutive sentences, explaining as follows: [W]hen, pursuant to section 921.161(1), a defendant receives pre-sentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served....

...State, 452 So.2d 938, 938-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). Therefore, when a defendant receives concurrent sentences, his jail time is credited toward all concurrent sentences, but when a defendant does not receive concurrent sentences, jail time may be credited toward only one sentence. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2004), sets forth when sentences are to run concurrently: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or af...

...vely. Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently. (Emphasis added.) Pursuant to section 921.16(1), unless the trial court directs that sentences for separately charged offenses run concurrently, those sentences are consecutive. Here, the Fourth District properly applied our precedent in Daniels and the statutory requirements of section 921.16(1). Ransone was sentenced on separately charged offenses, and the trial court did not make the Broward sentence concurrent with any other sentence. Therefore, under section 921.16(1), Ransone's Broward sentence was consecutive to his previous Miami-Dade sentence....

...Contrary to appellant's claim, it does not appear that his sentences on all five (5) counts were ordered to be served consecutively. Rather, it appears that Counts II, III, V and VI were ordered to be served consecutively to Count I, but concurrently with each other. See § 921.16, Fla....

sentence, can be a valid reason for departure. See § 921.0016(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996); Banks v. State

under the sentencing guidelines in all cases. See § 921.0016(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). Although the courts have

...lier sentences he was serving and that the written sentences are illegal because they do not affirmatively indicate the sentences are to run concurrently. The Department of Corrections has calculated Mr. Nielson's sentences consecutively pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides that sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same information are served consecutively unless the trial court specifies otherwise....

...On the face of the record, the written sentences imposed in case number 84-1200 in 1991 are legal sentences. In the absence of a designation on the written sentence that the sentences are to be served concurrently with the other sentences, the Department of Corrections has properly obeyed section 921.16(1) and has calculated the sentences to be served consecutively....

...Instead, such a motion should be denied because it is legally insufficient to establish that the sentence is illegal after review of the existing record. When the box on the standard sentencing form addressing the issue of whether the sentence is concurrent or consecutive to any active sentence being served is not marked, section 921.16(1) essentially provides a default rule of law that the new sentence will be served consecutively to the active sentence....

physical disabilities and was amenable to treatment. § 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1995).[2] Mrs. Spioch

is not what was contemplated by the statute. § 921.0016(4)(i). It requires the defendant to cooperate

..., Florida Statutes, F.S.A. However, it did have jurisdiction to try him for the misdemeanors. The judge did not specifically prescribe that the sentences would run consecutively. Hence, we hold that they run concurrently. There is no statute such as Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to govern sentences for offenses charged in an affidavit-complaint, as distinguished from an information or indictment. Under Section 921.16, supra, when two or more offenses are charged in the same information or indictment, terms of imprisonment run concurrently unless expressly directed to run consecutively. By analogy we treat the complaint here the same as if it were an information. By statutory analogy we apply the rule of Section 921.16, supra, to the instant complaint and sentences....

...ge's decision and sentencing appellant to life sentences without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years with credit for time served. The trial judge is to decide whether the life sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively. See § 921.16, Fla....

...The written sentences indicate that the sentences are to run consecutively. In his motion, Campbell sought correction of his written sentences, claiming that at the sentencing hearing the trial court did not direct the sentences to run consecutively, and therefore, his sentences should run concurrently. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...It is apparent from the sentencing transcript that the trial court did not direct the sentences to run consecutively. Therefore, the prison sentences shall run concurrently, and the written sentences shall be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. See § 921.16(1); Ashley v....

request for downward departure, finding that Section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes, does not authorize a

treatment is no longer a valid departure basis. See § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. O'Dorle, 738

set forth in section 775.082, Florida Statutes. § 921.0016(1)(e) (1995). Section 775.082, Florida Statutes

...COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The State argues that we should affirm the sentence in accord with Branch v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D751, ___ So.2d ___, 2000 WL 289731 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 21, 2000) which held that trial courts have discretion pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1997) to impose a consecutive sentence under the Act for each count of the information. We disagree with the decision in Branch to the extent that it suggests that consecutive sentences may be imposed under the Act for crimes arising out of the same criminal episode. Section 921.16(1) is an integral part of the Criminal Punishment Code and applies to guidelines sentences imposed pursuant to the Code....

...offender as defined in this section, such defendant is not eligible for sentencing under the sentencing guidelines...." Although trial courts may impose consecutive sentences under the Act if the crimes do not arise out of the same criminal episode, section 921.16(1) may not be used to impose such sentences when the crimes do arise out of the same criminal episode.

...Inasmuch as we have not been presented with copies of underlying documents such as the sentencing orders, it is impossible for us to determine whether petitioner was granted credit on his sentences, or any of them, for time served in jail while awaiting sentencing, as is authorized by F.S. § 921.161....

...1, and Sept. 6, 1972, were to run consecutively to the sentence of Feb. 6, 1968, and to each other (for a maximum total sentence on the three convictions of 15 years), or were to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on Feb. 6, 1968. F.S. § 921.16 would make these sentences consecutive unless otherwise ordered by the trial court, [2] but we have not been provided with copies of the sentencing orders to enable us to determine *448 whether the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on Feb....

provided the defendant is amenable to treatment. § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2006). To establish a need

departure. See § 921.001(7), Fla. Stat. (1995); § 921.0016(3), Fla. Stat. (1995); Capers v. State, 678 So

within fifteen days after the date of sentencing. § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.702(d)(18)(A);

insufficient and are not supported by the record. Section 921.0016 provides a list of mitigating circumstances

we unanimously adopted in Ree. Furthermore, section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida

would, based on three mitigating factors in section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (1995). The state appeals

state prison sentence without written reasons. § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because the trial court

...horities had failed to transport him to that state and that he remained incarcerated in Florida. Since the trial court lacked jurisdiction to compel the New Jersey officials to act, the conditions of appellant's plea bargain have not been met. Under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1981), a Florida court may direct that a sentence which is imposed may be served concurrently with a sentence from another jurisdiction....

was specially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." § 921.0016(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995).[1] Writing in the analogous

constitute a mitigating circumstance. We disagree. Section 921.0016(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) provides that

proper reason to justify departure. See Fla. Stat. § 921.0016(1)(j). The supreme court in Capers v. State,

...*603 There is a final contention to the effect that the appellant had previously been sentenced to life imprisonment for another homicide and that this earlier sentence precludes the execution of the death penalty for the instant crime. No authorities are cited to support the contention. We are referred to Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which has to do with the arrangement of the sentences upon conviction of two or more offenses charged "in the same indictment." This statute has no bearing on the instant situation....

Brown, 717 So.2d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(citing § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Ch. 97-194, § 41, Laws

of approved grounds to mitigate sentences. See § 921.0016(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). Although all bases

treatment program suitable for the Defendant. See § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing for mitigation

participant in the criminal conduct," see section 921.0016(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), and "the offense

departure for crimes occurring after July 1, 1997. § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Ch. 97-194, § 41, Laws

...State, Fla.App. 1967, 197 So.2d 542, 544. The direction by the trial court for the sentences to be served consecutively did not operate to make the several lawful sentences constitute cruel or unusual punishment. That action of the court was authorized by § 921.16 Fla....

aggressor, or provoker of the incident. See § 921.0016(4)(f), Fla. Stat. (2000) (allowing the trial

717 So.2d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1997); Chapter 97-194

written reasons for the sentence as required by section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). We reject

1987); § 921.6012(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996); § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). [4] The state argues

...These facts were the basis of the attempted second degree murder with a weapon. A trial judge may sentence a criminal defendant to concurrent or consecutive sentences. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively"); § 921.16(1), Fla....

...ing the state sentences concurrent with the federal sentence. The petition was denied; this appeal followed. The manner in which an inmate may serve a Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence is by transfer to federal prison pursuant to section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

cruel, id. § 921.0016(3)(b), or where there is extraordinary emotional trauma. Id. § 921.0016(3)(e); see

...service of his five-year sentence before beginning the service of his first ten-year sentence, because these sentences (i.e., the five-year sentence and the first ten-year sentence) should have run concurrently. This contention is foreclosed by F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A., which provides in part that sentences for offenses not charged in *371 the same information "shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they * * * be served concurrently." No such express direction is con...

that the aggravating circumstances allowed in section 921.0016(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1993), is unconstitutionally

...ch we now deviate only to this extent under these particular circumstances. To require petitioner to serve a term of twenty-three years would be to nullify the credit so given. It is urged by respondent that we have overlooked the provisions of F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A....

...ion. *45 The question presented in Mayo was whether the new sentence ran concurrently with the original sentence. There was no in futuro revocation as that sub judice. In determining that the sentences ran concurrently despite the provisions of F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A., we noted in Mayo that the prisoner was not serving any sentence when the 5-year pronouncement was made and hence that the sentencing judge could not order the five years to run consecutively or concurrently, for at the time the 5-y...

...t know whether the conditional pardon would be revoked. In the instant case, however, parole had already been revoked when the 20-year robbery sentence (with credit for all time served) was imposed, and the sentencing judge had the power, under F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A., to order that the robbery sentence thus be served, in effect concurrently, with the firearms possession sentence, by ordering in the subsequent robbery sentence credit for "all time served" which necessarily included the already served three years firearms sentence....

after the date of sentencing as required by section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997); or within

...When the motion was denied, he instituted this appeal. Contrary to the assumption made by the sentencing judge below, the legislature has vested the trial court with discretion in criminal cases to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences in independent cases. § 921.16(1), Fla....

...Wainwright, 322 So.2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1975); State v. Hull, 545 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 549 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1989); Snell v. State, 438 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); McNamara v. State, 324 So.2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 337 So.2d 809 (Fla.1976). Section 921.16(1) states as follows: (1) A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the sentences of imprisonment con...

...less the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently. (emphasis added) Where the trial judge fails to specify whether sentences imposed for offenses not charged in the same information or indictment be served concurrently, section 921.16(1) dictates *47 that such sentences be served consecutively....

that section 985.215 lacks a counterpart to section 921.0016(1)(c)'s specific authority to file a transcript

...The court did not have a reason to do so because the Miami-Dade sentences had been completed. Nevertheless, because this case was charged separately from the Miami-Dade cases, by operation of statute, the Broward sentence was consecutive to the Miami-Dade sentences. § 921.16(1), Fla....

...ame indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently"). See also State *448 v. Matthews, 891 So.2d 479, 481 (Fla.2004) (explaining that, pursuant to section 921.16(1), because the trial court did not specify that a sentence was concurrent, a sentence for violation of probation was automatically structured to run consecutive to the sentence on an unrelated new offense committed while defendant was on probation)....

...cation of community control in an unrelated case. 744 So.2d at 1257. The Court concluded, "The reality is that the defendant served his Miami-Dade County time concurrently with the Monroe County community control." Id. This conclusion conflicts with section 921.16(1) which provides that, unless a trial court specifies otherwise, sentences imposed on offenses charged in separate charging documents are consecutive....

...In this situation, a trial court may have discretion to award credit from the date of execution of its warrant. See Kronz v. State, 462 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla.1985) (holding that trial court has discretion to award jail credit for time spent in jail in another state awaiting transfer to Florida). Nevertheless, pursuant to section 921.16(1), the sentence on the unrelated case is consecutive not concurrent....

...e Miami-Dade offenses beyond the sanction he received for violating his community control in the Broward case. A prolific criminal would benefit from his mobile recidivism. A defendant is entitled to credit for time served in jail before sentencing. § 921.161(1), Fla....

...We clarify Barrier and Trout which imply that credit must be awarded when a foreign county's warrant is executed, regardless of whether concurrent or consecutive sentences are imposed, and certify conflict with Tharpe which we believe conflicts with the requirements of section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes....

defendant's "intoxication at the time of the offense." § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1999). Thus, the court erred

sentence based on three mitigating factors in section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (1995).[6] One of the

sentencing guidelines score on the authority of section 921.0016(4)(j), Florida Statutes (1997), which authorizes

...atute. Reynolds next contends that the circuit court erred in denying him credit against his sentence for all the time he spent in jail prior to sentencing in this case. While the state concedes that such credit appears to be statutorily mandated by section 921.16(1), it argues that remand for resentencing is unnecessary because Reynolds was sentenced as a habitual offender under 775.084 to a life sentence....

Chandler, 668 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and section 921.0016(4)(j), Florida Statutes (1995); and the victim's

mitigation of the sentence in accordance with section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1997). The facts supporting

775.082 maximum. Both section 921.001(5) and section 921.0016(1)(e) are very clear that a departure sentence

sentence in this case was most likely based on section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), which

...ce. Accordingly, Glenn filed his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 asking for an order allowing him to proceed to trial. In the action below, the state responded to Glenn's motion contending the Department of Corrections, under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes, is given the discretion to determine the placement of inmates serving sentences from multiple jurisdictions....

ISRAEL, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 921.0016(4), titled "Recommended sentences; departure

typically analyzed on a case-by-case basis. See § 921.0016(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); Semenec v. State, 698

...v. Perko, 588 So.2d 980 (Fla. 1991). In addition to the reasons explained in those opinions, our decision is supported by the rules relating to jail credit for presentence imprisonment when a defendant receives consecutive sentences of imprisonment. § 921.161, Fla....

...idelines recommendation, it cannot impose consecutive sentences of incarceration at a single sentencing hearing absent a valid written reason for departure. See Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1990), approving, 540 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); § 921.16, Fla....

...unty arrest warrant, a claim the trial judge rejected below. Credit for the same jail time must be given on more than one sentence only when the sentences are concurrent. See Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504, 506 *718 (Fla.2003) ("[W]hen, pursuant to section 921.161(1), a defendant receives pre-sentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served.") (quoting Daniels v....

...th sentences for the time he spent in the Baker County jail. We reject the argument that the Bay County and Baker County sentences are not consecutive, and the notion that a sentence can be neither consecutive nor concurrent but "free-standing." See § 921.16(1), Fla....

filed a notice to seek an enhanced penalty. Section 921.0016(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1996), allows the

limitations provided in s. 775.082." See also § 921.0016(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995) ("[a] departure sentence

...Wainwright , the court conceded that its own Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.722, by providing that defendants convicted of two or more crimes were presumed to have been sentenced concurrently unless the trial judge specified differently, was substantive law and hence invalid since it conflicted with Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, which specified that defendants in such situations were presumed to have been sentenced consecutively....

a permissible "variation," not a "departure." § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla.Stat. The word "departure" in Rule

...the Act. See Henderson v. State, 569 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Concurrent Sentencing In its cross-appeal, the State asserts that the trial court mistakenly believed that it could not impose consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1997), states in pertinent part: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit ......

...ird-degree felony. Nowhere in section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1997), did the Legislature address consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing, although it could have done so if it had wished. As the trial court was vested with the discretion pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1997), to sentence the appellant to consecutive or concurrent sentences, and the prison releasee reoffender statute contains no specific provision suggesting a contrary intent, we conclude that the sentencing court exercised its discretion in ordering the two sentences to run concurrently....

...bly to the accused. § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). A defendant convicted of two or more offenses not charged in the same information shall serve the sentences imposed consecutively unless the court directs that some or all be served concurrently. § 921.16(1), Fla....

...ng court's wish to run the sentence imposed concurrent with any future sentences." As a result of such omission, once control release was revoked, the sentences were considered consecutive rather than concurrent by the Department of Corrections. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

the Third District correctly concluded that section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida

amenable to treatment." See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.990; § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). There is no evidence

on the basis of impairment is prohibited by section 921.0016(5), Florida Statutes, which provides: A defendant's

downward departure from sentencing guidelines. See § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also State v. Norris

...n offense committed while on community release concurrent or consecutive to his or her community release sentence and cannot defer the structure of the sentence to the Department of Corrections because the Department lacks such sentencing authority. § 921.16(1), Fla....

minor participant in the criminal conduct." See § 921.0016(4), Fla. Stat. (1993). However, Licea was the

incident for which defendant showed remorse. Section 921.0016(4)(j), Florida Statutes (1997). Appellee was

under the current criminal punishment code. See § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(25)

...State, 790 So.2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), does not require a contrary result. Branch stands for the general proposition that because the prison releasee reoffender act does not determine whether sentences under it are to be concurrent or consecutive, and because section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1997), vests discretion in the trial court to sentence defendants to either concurrent or consecutive sentences, both types of sentences are permitted under the prison releasee reoffender act....

...The petition alleges that Schlosser, who is presently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, pled guilty to grand theft with the understanding his Florida sentence would run concurrent with an existing federal sentence. However, Florida authorities refuse to transfer him to a federal institution. Section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that a Florida court " may direct that a sentence ......

silentio, the clear statutory language of section 921.0016(4)(f), Florida Statutes, which lists, among

0016(3)(n)(1, 2), Florida Statutes (1997). Section 921.0016(3)(f) provides for an upward departure if

sentence, which requires findings, is defined in section 921.0016(1)(c), which provides: A state prison sentence

treatment and was amenable to that treatment. See § 921.0016(4), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.990

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. We reverse the denial of Gregory McCarthur's postconviction motion. The trial court expressly declined to exercise its discretion under section 921.16(1), Florida *293 Statutes (1997), to decide whether the sentence imposed in this case would run concurrently or consecutively to the punishment to be imposed for McCarthur's control release violation in an earlier case. [1] Instead, the court left the matter to the Parole Commission to decide. The legislature vested the courts with the authority to make this determination. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...e 1992 crimes can be entered only as part of the defendant's "prior record," not as "additional offenses." This disposition is dictated by the definitions of "prior record" and "additional offense." See § 921.0011(1),(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). [6] See § 921.16....

reconvened at 1:30 p.m., defense counsel produced section 921.0016, which codifies mitigating circumstances under

reasonably justify the departure." § 921.0016(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). Section 921.0016(4)(a)-(l), Florida Statutes

sought a downward departure sentence based on section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2001), which authorizes

...at he has already served more time than he would have received if he was properly sentenced. Lastly, we note that Harris' contention that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive, as opposed to concurrent, sentences is without merit in light of section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1994), which gives a court discretion in ordering the manner in which sentences are to be served....

that the aggravating circumstances allowed in section 921.0016(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1993), to be used

concurrently, which seems to be the norm. See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2000) (setting the default for

mitigation of the sentence in accordance with section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1997). See State v. Sawyer

cruel, or if the victim is especially vulnerable. § 921.0016(3)(b) and (j), Fla. Stat. Pregnancy has been

victims were especially vulnerable due to age. See § 921.0016(3)(j), Fla. Stat. (1995). On appeal, Mr. Greene

...h the sentence for felony murder. The trial court said at the sentencing hearing the sentences were to run concurrent to one another, and the oral pronouncement governs a conflict. See Brammer v. State, 554 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In addition, section 921.16 provides that sentences run concurrently if not otherwise specified....

...346, quoting Justin Miller "The Criminal Act" in Legal Essays in Tribute to Orrin Kip McMurray, at 469, 478 (1935). [2] Kearse v. State, 662 So.2d 677, 682 (Fla. 1995); Butler v. State, 715 So.2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). [3] U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Art. 1, § 9, Fla. Const. [4] 921.16....

recommended under the sentencing guidelines." § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). See also State v. Norris

legal basis to employ this particular factor. See § 921.0016(3)(o) ("The offense [e.s.] was committed in order

as the court makes the necessary findings. Section 921.0016, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3.701, Fla. R

...pleted by the time appellant was found guilty in BR-7, it was no longer "pending" for purposes of the scoresheet. The State argues that because the convictions arose from separate informations, Judge Beauchamp properly exercised his discretion under section 921.16 in ordering the sentence in BR-7 to run consecutive to BR-8....

So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In addition, section 921.0016(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in

...idual. The penalty for murder in the second degree is prescribed as being imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for any number of years not less than twenty years. The maximum penalties were imposed as permitted by this statutory provision." Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "When the defendant has been convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment or information or in consolidated indictments or informations, the terms of imprisonment shall be served...

Banks, 732 So.3d at 1067 & n. 2 (citing § 921.0016). This is a purely legal issue that is reviewed

...Appellant raises as error the imposition of a sentence to run consecutively with undetermined future sentences. The judgment and sentence stated: "a term of five (5) years less 225 days heretofore served in the Volusia County Jail, to run consecutively with any additional sentences you are or will be serving." Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently....

...[2] The trial judge sentenced Turner to the statutory maximum term of five years on the first crime, [3] to be split by twenty-four months in jail and thirty-six months on probation. For the battery, Turner was sentenced to 364 days in jail, to be served consecutive to the first sentence by virtue of section 921.16 Florida....

imposing an upward departure sentence pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1997)[1] based upon

...Mims alleged that the trial court had imposed sentence "without ever determining whether this sentence would be served concurrent or consecutive to defendant's conditional release sentence." Mims cites no case or statute requiring any such determination, because none exists. To the contrary, section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2000), made it clear that the two sentences would run consecutively "unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently." The court gave no direction for concurrent terms, and Mims does not argue otherwise....

not intend to make any prospective ruling on section 921.0016(3)(j), Florida Statutes (1993), which authorizes

assumed to be appropriate for the offender." § 921.0016(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). Courts should avoid

submitted by appellant of mitigating factors under section 921.0016, Florida Statutes. We cannot say that the

aggravate the defendant's sentence pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(j), Florida Statutes, asserting the victim's

701(d)(11); § 921.0026(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (1997-2000); § 921.0016(1)(c) & (4), Fla. Stat. (1997 & Supp.1996); Barnes

incident for which Tice had shown remorse. Section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (2003), provides a non-exclusive

guidelines scoresheet. See § 921.0016(3)(i), (m), Fla. Stat. (1995); § 921.0016(3)(i), (m), Fla. Stat. (1993)

within seven days after Johnson's sentencing. See § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006). A trial court must

factors which reasonably justify the departure...." § 921.0016(2), Fla. Stat. Wynkoop faced a minimum sentence

recommended under the sentencing guidelines." § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). See State v. Sanders,

an escalating pattern of criminal conduct. See § 921.0016(3)(r), (p), Fla. Stat. (1995), respectively.

or were treated with particular cruelty. See § 921.0016(3)(p), (e), (l), Fla. Stat. (1997). At the conclusion

...and with any reincarceration stemming from the parole violation. In fact the 1991 sentences are concurrent, but no provision was made for concurrent time with the 1977 case. The earlier sentence, once reinstated, is therefore deemed consecutive. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...4) The period of time out on the second parole. 5) The time served on the Dade County sentence. 6) And any gain time that he might have accumulated. Appellant also contends that the new sentence for manslaughter must run concurrently with the Dade County sentence under the interpretation of § 921.16, Fla....

...In both cases, the revocation was not effective until after the two sentences, Pasco and Dade, had been served. In other words, he was still effectively out on parole while he was serving the other two separate sentences. He was not serving two sentences at the same time. Therefore, § 921.16, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., does not operate to make the sentences run concurrently or consecutively....

Brown, 717 So.2d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Section 921.0016(5), Florida Statutes (1997), prohibits departure

The challenged sentence was pronounced under section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), and Florida

downward departure by the legislature. See section 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. Although the court's second

is a valid basis for a downward departure. See § 921.0016 Fla. Stat. (1999); see also Banks, 732 So.2d

victims were each vulnerable due to their age, § 921.0016(3)(j), Fla.Stat. (1993), that Capers had abused

record does not support the downward departure. Section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes, provides that a downward

...The 10 years also did not exceed the statutory maximum sentences which Powell could have received — 15 years for aggravated battery, a second degree felony, and 5 years for false imprisonment, a third degree felony. Had there been no PRR sentence involved, the 2 sentences could have been imposed consecutively, pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, resulting in a total of 20 years....

upward departure sentences imposed pursuant to section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1993), after he violated

...Although trial courts have the statutory authority to impose a sentence that is to be served concurrently with a sentence imposed by another state or federal court, the Department of Corrections has discretionary authority regarding the placement of an inmate sentenced to serve multiple sentences. § 921.16(2), Fla....

was apparently relying on the provisions of section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes, which makes the following

As grounds for this motion, counsel cited section 921.0016(3), Florida Statutes (2004), which was repealed

sentences as departure sentences, pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(r), Florida Statutes (1995), in that robbery

aggravate appellant's sentence pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(j), Florida Statutes. The state based its

is amenable to treatment/rehabilitation. See § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). The guidelines

supported by a preponderance of evidence. See § 921.0016(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997). However, the second

mitigation of the sentence in accordance with section 921.0016." § 921.001(6), Fla. Stat. (1993). Such aggravating

...Appellant within the guidelines. Pope v. State, 561 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1990); Blair v. State, 601 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (opinion on mandate). The trial court's decision whether to make *472 the sentence consecutive or concurrent is governed by section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

record of prior convictions, as authorized by section 921.0016(3)(r), Florida Statutes (1994) (authorizing

...crimes in this state. Alvarez v. State, 358 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1978); §§ 784.045, 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). In addition, it was permissible for the trial court under Florida statutory law to impose consecutive sentences for these above crimes, § 921.16(1), Fla....

departure sentence with written findings."). [4] § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997) ("A state prison sentence

criminal conduct. The State argues, however, that section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1993),[1] which includes

...5th DCA 1985) (Cowart, J., dissenting) (where five sentences were concurrent with only three-year mandatory minimum portions of three of the sentences made consecutive, sentences were permissible under Palmer). Neither does Perez's sentence contravene section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...[3] Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Perez's 3.850 motion to correct his sentence. NOTES [1] The minimum mandatory sentence was imposed pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1983). [2] The minimum mandatory sentence was imposed pursuant to section 893.135(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1983). [3] Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1983), reads as follows: 921.16 When sentences to be concurrent and when consecutive....

...all penalties previously imposed as a deterrent to a prisoner inclined to break jail. [3] Tirko v. Wainwright, 178 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 1965); see also White v. State, 240 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1970). This statute controls over any apparent conflict with section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...NOTES [1] Farrow was serving fifty years in North Carolina for two burglaries, and was extradited to Florida to stand trial on charges of burglary and sexual battery. He escaped from an airplane in which he was being transported when it touched down in Seminole County. [2] Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides, in pertinent part, "sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same ......

disorder and is amenable to that treatment. See § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997). To justify a downward

ground would authorize an upward departure. See § 921.0016(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court reimposed

factors which reasonably justify the departure." § 921.0016(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). The defendant argues for

September 14, 1995 to July 3, 1996. At that time, section 921.0016(4) provided a downward departure sentence

have also been hurt by the Defendant. Fla.Stat. § 921.0016(3)(i). See also Dobson v. State, 566 So.2d 560

...Colon filed a motion to correct or clarify his sentences pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing that if the sentences are consecutive, in this case they are illegal because the court did not specifically express its intent that the sentences were to run consecutively. The motion was denied. Section 921.16(1) [7] provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed unless the trial court specifically states that the sentences are consecutive....

...had intended to impose consecutive sentences. In fact, the court believed that, the statute said that if you don't say anything, it is consecutive. That in order *1002 for it to be concurrent, you have to specifically say it is concurrent. However, section 921.16 provides the opposite....

...State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1269 (Fla.2003)(jeopardy attaches at conclusion of sentencing hearing at which sentencing is pronounced); Armstrong v. State, 896 So.2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Rivera v. State, 862 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, Counts II, IV and V are statutorily required to be concurrent. Macon. Section 921.16 is inclusive, and it places the burden on the trial judge to sentence with certainty....

...[3] Sections 775.087(1) and 784.045(1)(a)(1), a first degree felony. [4] Sections 775.087(1) and 787.02, a second degree felony. [5] Sections 784.07(2)(b) and 784.03, a third degree felony. [6] The state filed that it intended to seek enhanced punishment as a prison releasee reoffender. [7] Section 921.16(1) provides: a defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently, un...

...ty control. For all of these reasons, I believe upon remand that the trial court must use a single scoresheet in sentencing Tito. NOTES [1] It would appear that the trial court has the option of making the sentences in these three cases consecutive. Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be se...

...Execution of the Sentences The habeas court’s ruling is incorrect as a matter of law. Under both Florida and federal statutory law, sentences imposed at separate times in separate cases are presumed to run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3584 (a); § 921.16(1), Fla....

Fla. Section 13 of chapter 93-406 created section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (Supp.2004), which provided

departure. The first reason is contained in section 921.0016(n), Florida Statutes (1995), which allows

victim has "good" morals? This case shows why section 921.0016(4)(f), Florida Statutes should not be used

offense, or to effect an escape from custody." § 921.0016(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (1995). Because the attempted

...ion. See Fernandez v. State, 910 So.2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing Lykins v. State, 894 So.2d 302, 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). Furthermore, consecutive sentences for the two robbery counts committed in the same criminal episode were not illegal. See § 921.16, Fla....

restitution outweighed the need for incarceration. See § 921.0016(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005) (stating that where

departure sentence within seven days of sentencing. § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001); State v. West, 718

within seven days thereafter as required by section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) and Florida

...sentences be served consecutively. Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently. § 921.16(1), Fla....

Section 921.001(6), Florida Statutes (2001), and section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), also require

...list of available dispositional alternatives. Rather, the trial court is simply exercising an authorized power of disposition in a manner that is consistent with general law; separately charged offenses ordinarily receive consecutive sentences. See § 921.16(1) Fla....

...concurrently. However, at the hearing, defense counsel commented that it would be an illegal sentence if it were concurrent. Ultimately, after also being advised by the state that it had to be consecutive, the court changed the order to consecutive. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "[a] defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the sentences of imp...

...Jesse Cottengim appeals from the denial of his request to be given a coterminous sentence following his plea to a series of charges. [1] The trial judge declined to consider his request, believing such a sentence was illegal. The operative statute is section 921.16(3), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...to a civil lien. Additionally, the judgment does not list the correct statute violations on counts 8 through 10. On remand, the judgment orders should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement and the correct statute numbers. Finally, while section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2013), requires that Hughes’ sentences for counts 2 through 10 be treated as concurrent sentences2, the manner in which the judgment orders on each individual count were prepared lends more to confusion than clarity....

...hearing. 2 “A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same . . . information . . . shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.” § 921.16(1), Fla....

explained in writing by the trial court judge. Section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), states: A

...6 Buick automobile and larceny of a 1955 Chevrolet automobile. Petitioner plead guilty to both offenses, was convicted and sentenced to consecutive sentences of imprisonment of two (2) years and three (3) years, respectively, on April 26, 1957. (See § 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.)....

...Instead, the sentence for the third 2003 case was run concurrent with the sentences imposed on revocation of probation and vice versa. Thus, those sentences were treated as running consecutive to the sentences imposed in June 2003 for the first two 2003 cases. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...At the August 29, 2007, sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence. 2 The court did not state whether the sentence was to run concurrently with or consecutively to any existing sentence, and by operation of law the sentence runs consecutively to the preexisting thirty-three month sentence. § 921.16(1), Fla....

So.2d 288, 296 (Fla.2001) (concluding that section 921.0016(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1997), does not prohibit

“assumed to be appropriate for the offender.” § 921.0016(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). The Legislature

sentence for each sexual battery. 2 Section 921.0016(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that

...However, the record contains a letter in which trial counsel misadvises the appellant, and makes reference to having previously provided him the same misadvice, that it was up to the Parole Commission or the Department of Corrections [DOC] to concurrently impose the sentences. This is incorrect. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...se the [DOC] lacks such sentencing authority"); Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("Where the trial judge fails to specify whether sentences imposed for offenses not charged in the same information or indictment be served concurrently, section 921.16(1) dictates that such sentences be served consecutively")....

sentencing guidelines is reasonably justified." See § 921.0016(3). The "1994 sentencing guidelines supersede

...The sentence imposed by the Court of Crimes was for one year. This single sentence necessarily covered both offenses, but there was no express direction by the court that the sentences for the two offenses (of six months maximum each) should be served consecutively. Section 921.16, F.S.1953, F.S.A., provided that where a person is charged and convicted on two or more counts originating in one information, as was the case here, “the *119 terms of imprisonment shall he served concurrently unless the court expres...

specified in section 921.0016 apply to the case at bar. But, as they also agree, section 921.0016's list of

...Roosevelt Rudy Perry, in proper person. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee. Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and COPE and WELLS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Flores v. State, 745 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Holmes v. State, 650 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); § 921.16(1), Fla....

...nts appears to be correct, because when the written judgment and sentence is silent on the matter, and the sentences were imposed for crimes “charged in separate informations,” the presumption is that the sentences are consecutive. See § 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2001) (“Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently.”) (emphasis added); Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45, 46-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“Where the trial judge fails to specify whether sentences imposed for offenses not charged in the same information or indictment be served concurrently, section 921.16(1) dictates that such sentences be served consecutively.”)....

trial court's downward departures based upon section 921.0016(4)(d) are unsupported by competent substantial

basis for departure, the legislature amended section 921.0016 to remove drug addiction as a basis for downward

each of which falls within a subsection of section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1993). The reasons as written

offenses. DOC, on the other hand, relied on section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1993), and Kirkland v

reasons for the departure, as required by section 921.0016(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995). We, therefore

to age or physical or mental disability.” See § 921.0016(8)0'), Fla. Stat. (1995).1 Because the State

the sentences and remand for resentencing. Section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2001 & 2002),2 provides

...ncement was only that the Seminole County sentences in this case were to run concurrently with one another. The sentencing transcript attached to the denial order confirms the accuracy of the trial judge's conclusion. On appeal, Caldwell argues that section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2007), requires sentences to be treated as concurrent sentences unless the sentencing court directs otherwise....

...We affirm the trial court's denial of the claim as it was alleged in appellant's initial motion. The trial court properly accepted the state's position that there was no need for the trial court to clarify the 1994 sentences associated with the 1992 cases. See § 921.16, Fla....

...entences in his 2001 and 2003 cases— which Larson was serving on conditional release when he was arrested, charged, and convicted in the 2012 cases—the 2012 sentences would be served consecutively to the 2001 and 2003 sentences as required by section 921.16, Florida Statutes (2012). Larson argued that had he known his 2012 sentences would run consecutively to his sentences in the prior cases, he would not have entered the plea....

...back, extending his time in prison. The DOC advised Larson that because the trial court had not specified that his 2012 sentences were to be served concurrently with his 2001 and 2003 sentences the sentences would be served consecutively, citing section 921.16. Larson's trial counsel also testified at the hearing....

...subsequent motion because the structuring of Larson's 2012 sentences with his existing sentences is a direct consequence of his plea, which he must be advised of in order for his plea to be voluntary. Larson argues, in part, that the application of the mandatory language of section 921.16(1), in the absence of a determination by the trial court, to establish the structure of his sentences—whether they are to be served concurrently or consecutively—has a definite and immediate effect on his plea in this case....

...such a sentence."); see also Bruce v. State, 679 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("[T]he legislature has vested the trial court with discretion in criminal cases to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences in independent cases." (citing § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat....

...And it is the structure of the sentences that constitutes the alleged direct consequence here. In the absence of a directive from the trial court that sentences in otherwise independent cases are to be served concurrently, the statute requires that those sentences "shall be served consecutively." § 921.16(1) (emphasis added)....

...ively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently." Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, where the trial court does not impose the structure of a new sentence in relation to existing sentences, the requirement of section 921.16(1) that the sentences be served consecutively automatically applies to the new sentence. Here, the failure of both the trial court and counsel to recognize the ramifications of section 921.16(1) on the structure of Larson's new sentences with his existing sentences resulted in a definite, immediate, and automatic effect: the sentences must be served consecutively, and the new sentences cannot begin to run until the exist...

...The Third District affirmed the order of denial without prejudice to Crump's ability to challenge the forfeiture in the appropriate administrative proceedings. Id. The Crump decision does not address pending conditional-release violations, Scantling, or section 921.16. This may be because the DOC advised Crump that his gain time had been forfeited rather than that his sentences were required to be served consecutively pursuant to section 921.16.3 Here, the DOC advised Larson that by operation of law his sentences in the 2012 cases would be served consecutively to the 2001 and 2003 sentences....

...e. 137 So. 3d at 1150-51 (citing State v. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)). - 11 - plea in the 2012 cases where Larson was not made aware of the definite, immediate, and automatic effects of section 921.16 on Larson's sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Larson's motions for postconviction relief inasmuch as it incorrectly determined that the application of section 921.16(1) to the structure of Larson's sentences was not a direct consequence of his plea....

addiction and was amenable to treatment. See § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). That section was

posed by the unusual facts in Knarich's case. Section 921.0016(2), Florida Statutes (1997), does provide

...list of available dispositional alternatives. Rather, the trial court is simply exercising an authorized power of disposition in a manner that is consistent with general law; separately charged offenses ordinarily receive consecutive sentences. See § 921.16(1) Fla.Stat....

departure sentences, upward or downward are required. § 921.0016(l)(c); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(ll). We think

from the recommended guidelines sentence. Section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), states that

departure from the sentencing guidelines. Section 921.0016(3)®, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that

to support an upward departure pursuant' to section 921.0016(3)©, Florida Statutes (1997). On the date

...d upon her. The Department of Corrections will therefore run the sentences for the grand theft and uttering a forged instrument consecutively to the sentences previously imposed upon Gandy for offenses that were charged by separate informations. See § 921.16, Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 921.16, Fla....

...abilitate youth. Accordingly, juveniles are committed for indeterminate lengths of time. It is, therefore, generally impossible to fix a date from which to deduct time spent in secure detention. Perhaps this is why there is no comparable statute [to section 921.161(1) ] found in Chapter 985....

...He was sentenced to two years imprisonment at hard labor on each information, they having been consolidated for trial. Nothing was said in the judgments as to whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. Writ of habeas corpus was granted on the contention that petitioner' was held illegally contrary to Section 921.16, F.S.A....

...ri to the Supreme Court of the United States stayed his commitment until January 25, 1954, and has not served, including all gain time allowable, either of his two year sentences. There is no showing that respondent will not follow the provisions of Section 921.16, F.S.A., when petitioner becomes entitled to its benefits....

...The presumption is that officers will do their duty as the law directs them. Miami Retreat Foundation *593 v. Ervin, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 667 ; Clements v. Starbird, 152 Fla. 155 , 12 So.2d 578 . Petitioner has not carried the burden of showing that he is entitled to claim any of the benefits of Section 921.16, F.S.A....

...nt is not *953 entitled to the additional credit because his sentence in Citrus County was not ordered to be served concurrently with the Marion County sentence, which had been served and completed well before the Citrus County sentence was imposed. Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (2011), concerns credit for time served and provides, “A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence....

...The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.” In Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986), the court held that credit for time served applies differently to concurrent and consecutive sentences, explaining that when, pursuant to section 921.161(1), a defendant receives pre-sentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concun'ently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served_We distinguish this situation from one in which the de...

...Thus, “when a defendant receives concurrent sentences, his jail time is credited toward all concurrent sentences, but when a defendant does not receive concurrent sentences, jail time may be credited toward only one sentence.” Ransone v. State, 48 So.3d 692, 694 (Fla.2010). Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2011), explains when sentences are to run concurrently: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affi...

...Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently. The court in Ransone further explained, “Pursuant to section 921.16(1), unless the trial court directs that sentences for separately charged offenses run concurrently, those sentences are consecutive.” 48 So.3d at 694 ....

...have a reason to do so because the Miami-Dade sentences had been completed. Nevertheless, because this case was charged separately from the Miami-Dade cases, by operation of statute, the Broward sentence was consecutive to the Miami-Dade sentences. § 921.16(1), Fla....

...e same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently”). See also State v. Matthews, 891 So.2d 479, 481 (Fla.2004) (explaining that, pursuant to section 921.16(1), because the trial court did not specify that a sentence was concurrent, a sentence for violation of probation was automatically structured to run consecutive to the sentence on an unrelated new offense committed while defendant was on probation)....

...e the sentence was imposed in this unrelated case. Id. at 447-48. The Florida Supreme Court approved the Fourth District’s decision, concluding that “the Fourth District properly applied our precedent in Daniels and the statutory requirements of section 921.16(1).” Ransone, 48 So.3d at 694 ; see also Ponce v....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.0016(3)(i), Fla.Stat. (1995); Jordan v. State, 728 So.2d 748 (Fla. 3d

...confinement of such person and may also designate the 2  place in Florida for reception and confinement of such person in the event that confinement in the other jurisdiction terminates before the expiration of the Florida sentence. § 921.16(2), Fla....

...may direct that the sentence imposed by such court be served concurrently with a sentence imposed by a court of another state or of the United States,” which is a clear statement of legal authority for the type of concurrent state/federal sentence imposed in this case. § 921.16(2), Fla....

...affording a remedy.”). 6 . . . shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law.”). Some confusion has spawned because of the Department’s placement discretion under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes, which says first that circuit courts may impose concurrent federal/state sentences and secondly that the Department “may designate the correctional institution of the other jurisdiction as the place for reception and confinement of such person and may also designate the place in Florida for reception and confinement of such person in the event that confinement in the other jurisdiction terminates before the expiration of the Florida sentence.” § 921.16(2), Fla....

...with a federal sentence,” which is the opposite of what subsection (2) says. The better view, and one that clarifies Doyle, was expressed in Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), which noted that the problem with a concurrent state/federal sentence under section 921.16(2) is not that Florida courts are without a remedy to enforce their sentencing orders....

...The trial court correctly denied relief. “Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently.” § 921.16(1), Fla....

pronounced.” Respondent contends that F.S. section 921.16, F.S.A., and F.S. section 944.40, F.S.A., preclude

...The court did not announce that the sentences would be served consecutively. Accordingly, as required by statute, the written sentence provided that appellant serve eighteen months in prison on each count, and ten years’ probation on each count, all to be served concurrently. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...8 commence after completion of sentence imposed in Dade County, Florida.” For this crime he was committed under No. C-002557. It should be noted that the one year sentence from Alachua County followed the five year sentence from Dade County. Under Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Alachua County one year sentence would be consecutive to and not concurrent with the five year Dade County sentence....

valid reason for imposing a departure sentence. § 921.0016(3)(e), Fla.Stat. (1993). We find that the trial

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Appellant has requested this court to correct the sentence document for Count III, delivery of a controlled substance, in that neither the concurrent nor the consecutive box was checked. We note that pursuant to section 921.16 Florida Statutes, where, as here, the court does not direct that the sentence be served consecutively, a defendant shall serve the sentences concurrently....

...See, e.g., Ellis v. State, 369 So.2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). It is conceivable that, through clerical error, the documents in this case omit any provision for concurrent time, in which case the presumption would be that the sentence is not concurrent with any other. § 921.16(1), Fla.Stat....

participant in the criminal conduct,” see section 921.0016(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), and i‘the

...Wicker contends by habeas corpus here that under the form of the judgments and sentences entered against him, the serving of the sentences must be construed to run concurrently and that he should have been released from custody in February, 1966, but in any event he should be now discharged. We agree. F.S. Sec. 921.16, F;S.A provides as follows: “When the defendant has been convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment or information or in consolidated indictments or informations, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently u...

...secutively. Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that they or some of them be served concurrently.” (Emphasis supplied). Said Sec. 921.16 was construed by the Supreme Court in Hall v....

...ment as to whether the sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently. After having served two years in prison, Hall filed habeas corpus proceeding, contending that, because the cases were consolidated for trial, the italicized language in Sec. 921.16 supra, applied, and the sentences against him should be held to have run concurrently, in which event he was entitled to his release from custody....

...For some purposes there must be a distinction between ‘consolidation’ and ‘consolidation for trial only.’ ****** “While there may be technical distinction between consolidation for all purposes and consolidation for trial only, in so far as it is applicable to Section 921.16, there is no showing that any such technical distinction is material....

...of sentencing did not affirmatively provide that the sentences “shall run concurrently, nor was respondent (Sheriff) advised by the Judge in open Court that said commitments should run concurrently”. However, this is a false premise, since Sec. 921.16 places the burden upon the sentencing Court, in consolidated cases, to affirmatively provide that the sentences run consecutively if such be desired, otherwise they must be construed to run concurrently....

...uoted language was surplus-age. Unless the court specifically directed otherwise, the new sentence would as a matter of law be consecutive to any other sentence for an offense that was the subject of a separate indictment, information, or affidavit. § 921.16, Fla.Stat....

violation of felony probation. Additionally, under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1987), a court may, but

...Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because no sentencing guidelines scoresheet is attached to the order on appeal, we are unable to reach the merits of Mr. Buchanan’s claim. He maintains that the trial court exceeded the discretion allowed it under section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1993), and im-permissibly sentenced him to three consecutive sentences totalling fifteen years’ imprisonment, rather than to concurrent five-year terms....

...Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685 , 27 So.2d 276 ; House v. Mayo, D.C.Fla., 81 F.Supp. 663 . And inasmuch as it is not legally possible to serve a valid sentence concurrently with a void sentence which is nonexistent, Helton v. Mayo, supra, the provisions of section 921.16, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., became applicable, which provide: “Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in....

Among the grounds argued for departure under section 921.0016, Florida Statutes, the state argued that under

...not be allowed to stand. In the absence of court direction, sentences imposed for offenses not charged in the same information must be served consecutively while those imposed for offenses charged in the same information must be served concurrently. § 921.16(1), Fla.Stat....

without giving reasons for a departure,[1]see § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1994); we find that Jimenez

758 So.2d 1222, 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); See § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2003). Since it appears unclear

by means of concealment, guile, or fraud.” See § 921.0016(3)(i),(m),(n), Fla. Stat. (1995). Paul appeals

...§ 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1987). .On remand, this judgment should be corrected to show reference to the proper criminal statute, i.e., section 812.012(2)(c)4., rather than section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). . § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987). . § 921.16, Fla.Stat.1987....

645, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In this case, section 921.0016(3)(o), Florida Statutes (1995), expressly

Consecutive sentences on the two counts are permissible, § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1991), and appellant acknowledged

could not be a mitigating factor pursuant to section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (2002). Moreover, the

written reasons for the departure as required by section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), and rule 3

...the circuit court to attach documentation to the order. In the present case, Ricks’ contention was that he was entitled to a sentence concurrent to a pending violation in which he anticipated a sentence. This ground is legally insufficient. Under § 921.16(2), Fla.Stat., (1981) the court may impose a sentence concurrent with another sentence for an offense contained in a separate charging instrument....

...he was serving. (5) A three-year sentence entered by the Criminal Court of Record, Orange County, Florida, on October 26, 1970, for the crime of attempted robbery. This sentence is consecutive to the sentences imposed for prior offenses, pursuant to Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1969), which was then applicable....

...Appellant’s main complaint is that the court ordered his confinement time to run consecutively on the two sentences, whereas the original grant of probation ordered the terms thereof to run concurrently. He asserts error on the grounds (1) that the court had no power to make that change under the Villery rule, and (2) section 921.16, Florida Statutes, does not authorize a sentence running both consecutively and concurrently to another sentence....

...mbined term was not ten years but five. So long as the court observes that overall limitation, and the incarceration for any one offense is less than one year, the requirements of Villery have been met. With regard to the second point, we think that section 921.16, Florida Statutes, is not controlling....

...ant of five years probation on each charge, to run concurrently. Commitment for 364 days could be imposed as a condition of probation on each offense, to run consecutively. The edicts of Villery would thus be met and any possible inconsistency under section 921.16, Florida Statutes, which pertains to sentencing, would be avoided....

under both the 1994 and 1995 guidelines. See § 921.0016(3)(j), Fla. Stat. (1993) (departure from sentencing

in the other. Under the pertinent statute, Section 921.16, supra, sentences not ordered to run concurrently

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Appellant demonstrated no illegality in the trial court’s imposing consecutive sentences in this case, where the sentences were not enhanced. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...The trial court 1 specified in the first case that the sentence was to run concurrently to any and all active sentences. The second case, which is the subject of this appeal, does not designate how the sentence was to be served. As a result, pursuant to section 921.16, Florida Statutes (2012), the sentence is to be served consecutively....

State, 620 So.2d 187 (Fla.1993). We note that section 921.0016(3)(o), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that

...ecord before us that they are illegal. See Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So.2d 477, 479 (Fla.1975) (holding that possession of separate drug substances, each of which constitutes a separate violation of law, is subject to multiple sentencing); see also § 921.16(1) (1981) (giving trial court discretion to direct consecutive sentences for convictions charged in the same information)....

the sentencing guidelines as required under Section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida

sentences be.served consecutively. See Fla. Stat. § 921.16(1); see also Fla. Stat. § 921.0024(2) (sentencing

court’s imposition of a departure sentence. See § 921.0016(3)(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); cf., Lowe v. State

considered a downward departure sentence under -section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1997), because appellant

1994 statutory and rule amendments found in section 921.0016, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3.702, Florida

...would receive in this case would run concurrent with sentences he alleges had already been imposed in other counties. We reverse. Paxson’s claim is that his attorney was ineffective because she did not inform the court that it had the power under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1993), to have Paxson serve this sentence concurrently with already existing sentences....

reasons for the departure that were based upon section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (1995). The state objected

...consecutive to the sentence in 93-44066B, with credit for time served in each case. On appeal, Forte argues that by giving credit for all time served for offenses not charged in the same information, these sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1994), the statute in effect at the time of Forte’s sentencing and currently1, provides that concurrent sentences 1 Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1994-present), provides, in relevant part, as follows: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, i...

If Section 921.16 F.S. 1941 had been in effect when the two sentences of Sept. 28, 1939 were imposed

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. § 921.16, Fla.Stat....

...sentence undisturbed." Id.; see also Larson v. State, 247 So. 3d 26, 31– 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (explaining the conditional release process). Therefore, Walden's motion explained, his previous sentences were fixed, and the trial court had discretion under section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2016),2 to order his 2017 sentences to run concurrently with those sentences....

...or concurrently to such a sentence."). Citing Richardson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), Walden maintained that his 2017 sentences were illegal because the trial court had refused to exercise its sentencing discretion under section 921.16(1). Instead, it had left the structure of the sentences to be decided by the Department of Corrections, which has no sentencing authority. 2 Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2016), states in relevant part, "[s]entences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of t...

...ved concurrently." 3  Based on its review of the record, the postconviction court in this case agreed with Walden's assertion that the trial court had failed to appreciate its discretionary authority under section 921.16(1)....

...In so concluding, we noted that the trial court had advised Platt that Platt's control release violations were "not its responsibility" and that, because the trial court did not express an intention for its sentences to run concurrently with any other sentences, the Department of Corrections (DOC) applied section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1993), such that Platt's new sentences ran consecutively to the sentences for which he had been on control release....

...2d at 308 ("The trial court apparently assumed that DOC would exercise some reasoned discretion in deciding whether to run the reinstated sentences concurrently or consecutively with the sentences on the 1992 offenses. DOC, on the other hand, relied on section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1993), and Kirkland v....

...cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)."). They would be illegal if the trial court could not have imposed the 2017 sentences consecutively to the 1992 sentences, but it is apparent that the trial court could have imposed consecutive sentences. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

defendant exhibits the potential to be rehabilitated. § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. Cohen, 667

604 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see also § 921.0016(3)(j). Petition denied.

...h the petitioner has alleged took place between himself and Judge Grayson. Finally, the respondent’s contention that the Hillsborough sentences do not begin to run until the expiration of the Sarasota sentences is supported by the language of F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A., which provides: “When sentences to be concurrent and when consecutive....

...e petitioner’s allegations, rather he concedes that they are correct. Respondent agrees that, because the sentencing court did not “direct that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively,” the sentences are to be served concurrently. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...probation also run concurrently.” Troncoso v. State, 825 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); accord Ellis v. State, 406 So. 2d 76, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Finally, we reject Jenkins’s argument that his consecutive sentences violate double jeopardy. See § 921.16, Fla. Stat....

and (b) vulnerability due to age of the victim, § 921.0016(3)0), Fla. Stat. (1996). We find that the evidence

death or great bodily harm to many persons.” § 921.0016(3)(i), Fla. Stat. (1997). The state argued that

order within fifteen days after sentencing. See § 921.0016(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993). The defendant did not

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001); Hall v. State, 823 So.2d 757, 762 (Fla

...Nor was mention made as to whether the sentences would be concurrent or consecutive. Since the two offenses were charged in separate informations, and since the judgments and sentences are silent, the presumption is that Ashford’s sentences are consecutive. § 921.16(1), Fla.Stat....

Procedure 3.722, adopted February 1, 1973, and Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1973). Our Rule of Criminal

...Michelle Delancy, Judge. Randy Washington, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident.” § 921.0016(4)(f), Fla. Stat. (2001-2003). Because the statute

departure sentence, we affirm the sentence. See § 921.0016(4)(j), Fla. Stat. (1995). The point raised by

departure” be filed within the same time frame. § 921.0016(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999). The State contends

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (2005)(when a sentence is silent as to whether two cases

Such circumstance authorizes an aggravation. See § 921.0016(3)(j), Fla. Stat.

prison sentence by more than 25 percent....” § 921.0016(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.702(d)(18)

statutory or case law criteria are *751 met. See id. § 921.0016. Section 775.0823 does not preclude a departure

...We perceive a related and more difficult question. On remand the trial judge believed that he had no discretion but to impose consecutive sentences. The question we face is whether the guidelines range takes precedence over the discretion given to a trial judge by section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. We hold that the sentencing guidelines law takes precedence over the concurrent-consecutive statute for various reasons. First, the guidelines law was enacted subsequent to section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) and thus would be presumed to be the latest expression of legislative intent....

...Second, and by analogy, it has been held that the guidelines law takes precedence over the earlier statute dealing with habitual offenders. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). Finally, in a case where consecutive sentences would exceed the guidelines, we have no doubt that the judge’s discretion under section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1987) would also be superseded by the guidelines, in that case making concurrent sentences mandatory....

...he alleged that his confinement was illegal because he had never been committed to the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. We deny the petition because his own attachments to his petition below conclusively refuted this claim. See also § 921.16(2), Fla....

departure as required by rule 3.702(d)(18) and section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). Although the

the statutory guidelines are departed from. See § 921.0016, Fla. Stat. (1997). In sum, there are very good

...principle of law as pointed out by the Fifth District, Unless there is specific statutory authority to impose a sentence, it cannot stand. And the language susceptible of differing constructions shall be construed most favorably to the accused. . . . [Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1979)] -9-  provides for concurrent sentences or consecutive sentences, but not a combination....

...y, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law,” § 775.087(2)(d), Fla. Stat., and stretching those words to now authorize something that neither section 775.087 nor section 921.16 expressly provides for: incarceration sentences being divided and interrupted into portions so that they can be stacked consecutively and concurrently in various combinations....

ruling the court rejected as inapplicable section 921.0016, Florida Statutes, which includes as a valid

...The committee note to that rule and the above cited supreme court cases all say no report is necessary where the specific sentence is mandatory. Here the specific sentence was not mandatory. It could have been either consecutive sentences or concurrent sentences. In fact, section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979), says when two or more convictions result from the same indictment, the sentences shall run concurrently unless the judge directs otherwise....

cruel, id. § 921.0016(3)(b), or where there is extraordinary emotional trauma. Id. § 921.0016(3)(e); see

...On the principle point suggested by the petitioner we are compelled to agree with the respondent. In other words, inasmuch as the trial judge did not expressly direct that the second sentence be served concurrently with the first sentence, then under Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., it must be held that the second sentence should be served consecutively, immediately following the termination of the first sentence....

MILLS, Judge. Cook appeals the dismissal of a Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1981), challenge to the Commission’s Rule 23-19.01(5). We affirm. The rule is not in conflict with Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...State, 477 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), our sister courts have held that it is improper to direct a sentence to run concurrently with another sentence not then in existence and allowed appellants to withdraw their pleas. In Richardson , the court stated: Under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1981), a Florida court may direct that a sentence which is imposed may be served concurrently with a sentence from another jurisdiction....

and the defendant was amenable to treatment. § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat.; Ch. 93-406, § 13. Subsection

within 15 days of sentencing, as required by section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida

circumstance chosen by the trial court is listed in section 921.0016, Florida Statutes, as “[t]he victim was physically

the 25% increase in prison time allowed by section 921.0016(l)(b) without giving departure reasons, does

1998), has added a condition not found in section 921.0016(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), or Florida

...Appellant preserved the issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error.  Sentences for offenses charged in the same indictment must be served “concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.” § 921.16(1), Fla....

...Additionally, a trial court’s written sentence must conform to its orally pronounced sentence. See Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). 1 As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct its written sentence to comply with its orally pronounced sentence and section 921.16, Florida Statutes. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LEVINE, C.J., KUNTZ, J., and BOATWRIGHT, JOE, Associate Judge, concur. * * * Not final until disposition of tim...

court did not comply with the requirements of section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule

statutory grounds for departure are provided in section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (1995). However, the

legislature, in direct response to Barbera, enacted § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997), effective July. 1, 1997

consecutive or concurrent sentences as to each. See § 921.16, Fla.Stat. (1971); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.722. . See

...but not made part of this opinion. See also a true and correct copy of each of petitioner’s official parole revocations, being Exhibits E and F, attached and made a part of the return, but not included here. This question is further put at rest by Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995). GOSHORN, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur

was a level 4 offense, within a 180-day period. § 921.0016(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). The trial court decided

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 921.0016(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1994).

run consecutively to the two-year sentence. See § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1997) (sentences for offenses not

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(18) and section 921.0016(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). We vacate

the sentencing judge.1 We also note that section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), now allows

substance abuse. However, it should be noted that section 921.0016(5), Florida Statutes (1997), effective July

sentence. He claims he met the criteria under section 921.0016(4)(i) and (j), Florida Statutes (1995), permitting

the upward-departure sentence as required by section 921.0016(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993) and Rule 3.702(d)(18)

assumed to be cognizable under Rule 3.850. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.) forecloses

reason for the departure is not included within section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1995), which sets forth

disagree, as the sentence was imposed under section 921.0016(3)(r), Florida Statutes (1995), which permits

sentences were entered before the passage of F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A., which was intended to clarify such a

...There was no charge that he issued the check in exchange for anything of value. The Circuit Court of St. Johns County sentenced the petitioner to a term of six months to five years. If valid the two sentences would run consecutively and the petitioner would still be legally in the custody of the respondent. Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Greer v....

sentence could have been imposed pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2003). See Brooks

the statutory departure reason set forth in section 921.0016(3)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). AFFIRMED

appealed the downward departure sentence. Section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (2000), was amended effective

...th the other pending sentences now against you.” Appellant contends that he does not know when the present sentence is to commence because the “other pending sentences” are not specifically identified. In view of the express provisions of F.S. section 921.16, F.S.A., the statement by the court that such sentence be served consecutively *228 to the other sentences then pending against appellant is mere surplusage....

...n the sentence commences. The sentence for the conviction in this case will simply run consecutively to such prior sentences, the court not having expressly directed that the sentence in this case be served concurrently with any other sentence. F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A....

...t one stretch, rather than in bits and pieces. In that opinion, this court cited with approval the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in *1071 Rozmestor v. State, 381 So.2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In Rozmestor , the Fifth District held that section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979), permitted a court to impose either concurrent sentences or consecutive sentences but not a combination. Rozmestor, 381 So.2d at 326 . Similarly, section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), authorized Stroman’s sentencing court only to impose either concurrent or consecutive prison sentences, but not a sentence part concurrent with and part consecutive to another prison sentence. There were no changes in the wording of section 921.16(1) between the 1979 and 1988 versions....

...At each sentencing, the trial judge ordered that the sentence being imposed run concurrent to those sentences in the new group of eight for which sentencing had already been imposed. The trial judge did not, however, provide that any of these eight sentences be concurrent to any other prior sentences. Consequently under section 921.16(1) Florida Statutes (2001), and Bruce v....

departure has never been an appeal-able issue. See § 921.0016(2), Fla. Stat. (1997).

delineating the reasons for the variation.” Id. § 921.0016. The defendant maintains that the only recommended

...Johnson’s 3.800(b)(2) Motion to Correct Sentencing Error While this appeal was pending, Mr. Johnson filed a motion to correct sentencing error in accordance with rule 3.800(b)(2) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argued that his consecutive sentences did not comply with the oral pronouncement and that under section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2004), his sentences should have been designated to run concurrently. Because the trial court did not enter a signed, written order disposing of the motion within sixty days, the motion is considered denied under rule 3.800(b)(2). Discussion Section 921.16(1) provides, in pertinent part: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same ......

...vant once the sentencing hearing was concluded. Comtois v. State, 891 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“The ‘pronouncement’ becomes final when the sentencing hearing ends.” (citing Farber v. State, 409 So.2d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982))). Section 921.16 places the burden on the trial court “to sentence with certainty” in the oral pronouncement....

...State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003) (“[A] court’s oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written document.”). The oral pronouncement of Mr. Johnson’s sentences was neither ambiguous nor unclear. Because the trial court did not direct otherwise, section 921.16(1) requires that Mr....

percent increase permitted by the guidelines, § 921.0016(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Therefore, it is clear

to the effective date of the amendment to section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1997). . There

six months preceding the instant offenses, see § 921.0016(3)(e), Fla.Stat. (1995); and (2) appellant’s

PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J„ concur. . Section 921.0016(3)(m) of the Florida Statutes (1995), authorizes

Bostick, 715 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 921.0016(4)(d), (5), Fla. Stat. (1997).

...Stat. (1981) (“When any person is convicted of two or more felonies and consecutive sentences are imposed, then the jurisdiction of the trial court judge as provided herein shall apply to one-third of the total consecutive sentences imposed.”); § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat....

because it is fundamental error.”). . See § 921.0016(3)0, Fla. Stat. (1997) ("The victim was especially

constitutes a valid reason for departure. See also § 921.0016(3)(i), Fla. Stat. (1993); Hernandez v. State

informations. This is authorized by statute. F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A. expressly provides that— “[wjhen the defendant

...The incarcerative part of the sentence is permissible so long as it does not exceed the guidelines amount. A consecutive probationary period is permissible up to the legal maximum. Since the trial court is allowed to impose consecutive sentences, see § 921.16, Fla....

...charge to run concurrent with or consecutive to the misdemeanors. In the absence of a specific direction that sentences are to be served consecutively, sentences resulting from crimes charged in the same information shall be served concurrently. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...DOC, therefore, treated the concurrent and coterminous language of the Dade sentence as a legal nullity. As a result, DOC reasoned that because the Dade sentence did not address the St. Johns sentence, Whipple's Dade sentence would have to be served consecutive to the St. Johns sentence pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...had before it an otherwise valid sentence which did not mention Whipple's existing St. Johns sentence. Under such circumstances, DOC was required to run the Dade sentence consecutive to the St. Johns sentence pursuant to the legislative mandates of section 921.16(1)....

...In the absence of an expressed intent on the part of the Miami-Dade court that the Dade sentence run concurrent and coterminous with the St. Johns sentence, DOC was statutorily obligated, as stated earlier, to run the Dade sentence consecutive to the St. Johns sentence. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...[4] That section provides in relevant part: Sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit shall be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently. § 921.16(1), Fla....

contrary to law. The motions were denied. Section 921.0016(2), Florida Statutes (1997), gives the appellant

that such a specific finding is required by section 921.0016(3)(p), Florida Statutes (1993), before a departure

...As a result of the trial court’s silence on the issue of whether the appellant’s sentences were to run concurrent or consecutive to his violation of conditional release, the Department of Corrections deemed the sentences to run consecutive pursuant to section 921.16(1), Fla....

(Fla.2001), or in the upward departure sentence. § 921.0016(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). See McCallister v. State

254 So. 3d 996, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Section 921.0016(3)(r), Florida Statutes (1995), permits an

date at August 26, 1980. Further, relying on Section 921.16, Florida States (1971),6 Segal and Joseph,

victims, was not a valid basis to depart under section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1994). Mr. Ayala also contended

for departure, "leadership role by Def." See § 921.0016(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (1995) (providing for an upward

specifically permits this basis for departure, § 921.0016(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (1997), became effective only

court found certain aggravating factors. See § 921.0016, Fla. Stat. (1997). The legislature gave the

death or great bodily harm to many persons. See § 921.0016(3)0), Fla.Stat. (1993). Briefly, the facts on

...Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Simmons v. State, 217 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969). It is well settled that sentences for different crimes run consecutively unless otherwise directed by the trial judge. Helton v. Mayo, supra; § 921.16, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...t that the sentencing court intended to impose concurrent sentences. Accordingly, on the face of the record, there is no error in running the two sentences consecutively, and the postconviction court was correct in denying the motion to clarify. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...ly or concurrently.” Mosley, 149 So.3d at 688 (quoting Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625, 630 (Fla. 2007)); see § 775.021(4) (providing that a sentencing judge may order separate sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively). The State cites section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (2016) to support its position that the sentences must be served consecutively....

...be served consecutively unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served concurrently.” Id. No one disputes that the trial *66 court could sentence the defendant to consecutive sentences. But, it was not required to do so under § 921.16....

2d 983 (Fla.1995). We note that, pursuant to section 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1993), in the absence of court

recognizes the conflict between Rule 3.722, RCrP, and § 921.16, Fla.Stat. Rule 3.722, RCrP, directs that sentences

sentence' pursuant to section 921.0016(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1995). Section 921.0016(3)(e), however, only

...Nothing was said in the judgment whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. Two appeals were prosecuted to this court and both judgments were affirmed. Hall v. State, Fla., 66 So.2d 863 . Prior to two years service, defendant petitioned for habeas corpus alleging that his detention was in violation of Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The writ and return thereto were filed; then it was revealed that the petition was premature as to any right petitioner may have under Section 921.16 because he had not served two years of his sentence, there being no showing of gain time to accelerate the sentence in either conviction....

...ion 921.-16 was activated, which provided that his sentences run concurrently. The court treated the petition for rehearing as a new petition for habeas corpus, issued the writ and respondent filed return challenging petitioner’s interpretation of Section 921.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...An examination of the consolidation order, in the original file, indicates that it was for trial purposes only. While there may be technical distinction between consolidation for all purposes and consolidation for trial only, in so far as it is applicable to Section 921.16, there is no showing that any such technical distinction is material....

broke off the encounter and had Baker leave. Section 921.0016(3)(m) seeks to punish a defendant for inflicting

was not a valid basis for departure under section 921.0016(4)(a), Florida Statutes, or under the circumstances

incident for which Sweeney has shown remorse. See § 921.0016(4)(j), Fla. Stat. (2007). "To support a departure

...However, that would not preclude consecutive sentencing. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999) (requiring separate sentence for each offense committed in single criminal episode, and providing “the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively”); § 921.16(1), Fla....

written reasons for the departure as required by section 921.0016(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), and rule 3

departure from the guideline sentence was based on section 921.0016(l), Florida Statutes (1997), in that the "victim

reasons in support of its upward departure under section 921,0016(3), Florida Statutes: *8791. There was a substantial

...concurrently; the PRR sentence must be longer. See Grant, 770 So. 2d at 659. Finally, trial courts can impose consecutive sentences when a defendant is convicted of two or more 3 offenses charged in the same information. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

...the Broward sentence. Colston noted that because the February 2017 Palm Beach sentencing order was silent on the issue, the law mandated that it must run consecutive to the Broward sentence, which resulted in an aggregate of 125-years’ imprisonment. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

Id. at 271. The appellant was sentenced under § 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1993), which expressly does

..., v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 5D08-2490. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. August 12, 2008. Rehearing Denied September 17, 2008. *593 Frankie L. Drakes, Raiford, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

accompanied by written reasons as required by section 921.0016(c), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Rule

PER CURIAM. The appellant complains that the sentence pronounced orally at the sentencing hearing provides that he shall serve his sentences concurrently, but that the written sentences are silent on this point. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part: A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve th...

...The court pronounced a general sentence for all three felonies. The court did not announce that the sentences would be served concurrently. Accordingly, the written sentence provided that both the prison portion and the probation portion would be served concurrently. See § 921.16(1), Fla....

basis for the departure, the trial court cited section 921.0016(3)(i), which permits an upward departure if

as a valid reason for departure. However, section 921.0016(5), Florida Statutes (1997), effective July

...ate, where it is necessary in order to protect the accused from prejudice.” We therefore find no error in this ruling. It is next contended that the Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences upon the first and second counts of the Information. Section 921.16, F.S.A., provides : “When the defendant has been convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment or information or in consolidated indictments or in-formations, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently...

...Macon appeals his sentence entered after he pled to a multi-count information. He contends that the court failed to follow the plea agreement by not ordering the minimum mandatory terms for two counts to run concurrent. However, since the judge did not order the sentences to run consecutive, section 921.16(1), Fla.Stat....

...0 months.... Request a restitution order be prepared for restitution to Capital City Second National Bank, $976.77.” The sentencing sheets for counts 19-24 do not reflect that the sentences are to run concurrent with the sentences for counts 1-18. Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that, when a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same information, he “shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more o...

...In Florida, when a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses charged in the same charging document, the defendant "shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively. " Fla.Stat. § 921.16(1) (emphasis added)....

...serving no more than 59.25 months in prison. He seeks relief here because the Department of Corrections has now tacked the 59.25 month sentence in this case onto his existing seven year sentence in case number 94-9233 for a total of 11.25 years. See § 921.16, Fla....

vulnerability of the victims in the underlying cases. Section 921.0016(3)(j) permits an upward departure if this

under the sentencing guidelines.” Fla. Stat. § 921.0016(5) (2002). See also State v. Ford, 739 So.2d

precluded from considering the applicability of section 921.0016(4)(f), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), to crimes

upward departure sentence in accordance with section 921.0016(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1997). Accordingly

...However, on the felony count, McWhite was sentenced as a youthful offender and committed to the Department of Corrections for two years, followed by two years on community control. The sentences did not provide that the felony sentence would be served consecutively to the misdemean- or sentences. Pursuant to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1989), a defendant convicted of two or more crimes charged in the same information shall serve the sentences concurrently unless the court expressly directs they be served consecutively....

reasons for departure sentences as required by section 921.0016(c), Florida Statutes (1997), has not been

reason for an enhancement departure comes from section 921.0016(3)(j), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides:

State v. Rife, the Fifth District relied on section 921.0016(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1995) (allowing downward

forth written reasons for departure sentences. Section 921.0016(1), Florida Statutes (1993), requires that

and 921.0016(3)(o), Florida Statutes (1993). Section 921.0016(3)(h) provides: The defendant knew the victim