Eric Parravani v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 8, 2020
Docket2D19-0569
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ERIC PARRAVANI, DOC #F20101, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D19-569
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed July 8, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas
County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.
Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield,
P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,
for Appellee.
CASE, JAMES R., Associate Senior Judge.
Mr. Parravani was convicted of twenty counts of possession of child
pornography and sentenced to concurrent fifteen-year prison terms on ten of the counts
and, consecutive to those sentences, to concurrent twelve-year prison sentences followed
by three years of probation on each of the remaining ten counts. In this appeal from his
judgment and sentences, Mr. Parravani has raised issues related to both his convictions
and his sentences. We affirm his judgment and sentences and, with the exceptions noted
below, do so without further comment.
Because Mr. Parravani has argued issues related to the denial of his motion
for judgment of acquittal under the circumstantial evidence standard, we recognize that to
any extent that the recent opinion issued in Bush v. State, SC18-227, 2020 WL 2479140
(Fla. May 14, 2020), which issued while his appeal was pending, altered that standard for
the purposes of our review of this case, our affirmance of Mr. Parravani's judgment under
the facts of this case remains unchanged under either standard. Regarding the statutory-
maximum sentences for second-degree felonies imposed in this case, on which we
likewise find no reversible error on the issue raised and therefore affirm his sentences,
we do recognize, however, that an issue regarding collective or individual application of
the lowest permissible sentence (LPS) when that number exceeds the individual
statutory maximums for the primary and additional offenses, as is the case here,
remains pending in the Florida Supreme Court. See generally Champagne v. State, 269
So. 3d 629, 633, 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("The LPS is a minimum sentence; the question
is whether it is an individual minimum sentence, required to be imposed on each offense
at sentencing for which it exceeds that offense's statutory maximum, or a collective
minimum sentence. . . . But as is apparent, the language of section 921.0024(2) is not
consistent; both singular and plural terms are used, and the terms statutory maximum and
statutory maximum sentence are used without explanation or definition."). But see
Fruehwirth v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D831 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 9, 2020) (certifying conflict
with Champagne but also certifying its same question); Gabriel v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly
D2913 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 6, 2019), review granted, SC19-2155, 2020 WL 1888656 (Fla.
Apr. 16, 2020).
-2-
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
-3-