921.16
When sentences to be concurrent and when consecutive.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
921.16 When sentences to be concurrent and when consecutive.—
(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 concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the 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. Any sentence for sexual battery as defined in chapter 794 or murder as defined in s. 782.04 must be imposed consecutively to any other sentence for sexual battery or murder which arose out of a separate criminal episode or transaction.
(2) A county court or circuit court of this state 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 or, for purposes of this section, concurrently with a sentence to be imposed in another jurisdiction. In such case, the Department of Corrections 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. The sheriff shall forward commitment papers and other documents specified in s. 944.17 to the department. Upon imposing such a sentence, the court shall notify the Florida Commission on Offender Review as to the jurisdiction in which the sentence is to be served. Any prisoner so released to another jurisdiction shall be eligible for consideration for parole by the Florida Commission on Offender Review pursuant to chapter 947, except that the commission shall determine the presumptive parole release date and the effective parole release date by requesting such person’s file from the receiving jurisdiction. Upon receiving such records, the commission shall determine these release dates based on the relevant information in that file and shall give credit toward reduction of the Florida sentence for gain-time granted by the jurisdiction where the inmate is serving the sentence. The Florida Commission on Offender Review may concur with the parole release decision of the jurisdiction granting parole and accepting supervision.
(3) A county court or circuit court of this state may not direct that the sentence imposed by such court be served coterminously with a sentence imposed by another court of this state or imposed by a court of another state.
History.—s. 261, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(271); s. 124, ch. 70-339; s. 1, ch. 78-219; s. 24, ch. 79-3; s. 12, ch. 79-42; s. 1, ch. 79-310; s. 43, ch. 88-122; s. 10, ch. 95-283; s. 2, ch. 2000-179; s. 1, ch. 2003-128; s. 22, ch. 2014-191; s. 21, ch. 2016-24; s. 27, ch. 2017-37; s. 13, ch. 2017-107.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 171
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1942–2025 · leading case: Ransone v. State
Ransone v. State (2010)
“(citing § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2004)). The Fourth District relied on this Court’s decision in Daniels v.”
Oregon v. Ice (2009)
“, Florida ( Fla. Stat. § 921.16 (2007)); Kansas ( Kan.”
State v. Matthews (2004)
“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.”
Ransone v. State (2009)
“§ 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing: “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”).”
Benyard v. Wainwright (1975)
“The legislature has authorized concurrent and consecutive sentences in accordance with the provisions of Section 921.16, Florida Statutes (1973). The statute reads as follows: " When sentences to be concurrent and when consecutive.”
Nielson v. State (2008)
“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.”
Campbell v. State (2004)
“See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court denied the motion because the oral pronouncement was made in a way that suggested consecutive sentences.”
Cedric Dennard v. State (2014)
“(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. Stat. (1999) (court may direct that two or more of the sentences…”
Smith v. State (1989)
“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.”
Durr v. State (2000)
“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.”
Dorfman v. State (1977)
“See § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1971); Fla.R. Crim.”
Brumit v. Wainwright (1974)
“It is urged by respondent that we have overlooked the provisions of F.S. § 921.16, F.S.A. in this regard. This statute requires that sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment or information shall be served consecutively unless the court directs…”
— 921.16(1) — 81 cases
Ransone v. State (2010)
“(citing § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2004)). The Fourth District relied on this Court’s decision in Daniels v.”
State v. Matthews (2004)
“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.”
Ransone v. State (2009)
“§ 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing: “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”).”
Nielson v. State (2008)
“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.”
Campbell v. State (2004)
“See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court denied the motion because the oral pronouncement was made in a way that suggested consecutive sentences.”
— 921.16(2) — 12 cases
Richardson v. State (1983)
Glenn v. State (2001)
Davis v. State (2003)
Doyle v. State (1993)
Schlosser v. Singletary (1991)
— 921.16(3) — 2 cases
Cottengim v. State (2010)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.