Andre Harris v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 6, 2021
Docket1D19-1771
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-1771
_____________________________
ANDRE HARRIS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County.
David W. Fina, Judge.
October 6, 2021
PER CURIAM.
In his direct criminal appeal, Appellant raises three issues of
trial court error. We reject his arguments on the first two issues
without comment, but we reverse and remand for resentencing on
his third issue and the State’s concession of error.
The jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder in
count I and attempted armed robbery with a firearm in count II.
The jury also found as to both counts that during the commission
of the crime Appellant actually possessed a firearm, discharged the
firearm, and the discharge of the firearm caused a death.
The trial court sentenced Appellant under section 775.087,
Florida Statutes (2015), otherwise known as the 10-20-Life
Statute. The court sentenced Appellant to “life in prison without
parole” for the murder and “life in prison on the attempted robbery
and with a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence.”
Appellant challenges only the sentence on the attempted
armed robbery. As the Florida Supreme Court has held, the
sentence imposed was error. See Hatten v. State, 203 So. 3d 142,
145–46 (Fla. 2016). In Hatten the Court explained that once a trial
court orders a minimum mandatory sentence under the 10-20-Life
Statute, it exhausts its discretion and must have additional
authority to impose any additional sentence. Id. at 146. Following
the rule announced in Hatten, we reversed a sentence structured
identically to Appellant’s sentence. See Byrd v. State, 238 So. 3d
917, 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reversing sentence where court
imposed, under 10-20-Life Statute, life imprisonment with a 25-
year minimum mandatory; the life sentence was not minimum
mandatory and no additional statutory authority existed to go
beyond the 25-year minimum mandatory, 10-20-Life sentence).
Applying Hatten and Byrd here, once the trial court imposed
its 25-year minimum mandatory, it needed additional authority to
impose the life sentence. None appears to exist, and the State has
conceded error on this point.
We therefore accept the State’s concession on the sentencing
issue, and REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing only on count II
consistent with Hatten. We otherwise AFFIRM Appellant’s
judgment and sentences.
BILBREY, JAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Victor D. Holder, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
2
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3