
    Detarsha C. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-5463
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 16, 2019
    Andy Thomas, Public Defender; and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General; Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General; and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, resulting from one criminal episode involving one victim, in which three or four shots were fired. The trial court imposed consecutive minimum-mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (10-20-Life); and Appellant challenged that aspect of his sentence on appeal. Pursuant to Walton v. State , 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016), and Williams v. State , 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016), we remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether Appellant's minimum-mandatory sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. Bradley v. State , 223 So.3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The trial court re-entered consecutive sentences. After that hearing and while this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court decided Miller v. State , 265 So.3d 457, 2018 WL 4784069 (Fla. Oct. 4, 2018). In that case, the supreme court clarified its post- Williams cases as holding that consecutive sentences are permissible for single-episode crimes only when there are either multiple victims or multiple injuries-neither of which was the case here. Miller, 265 So.3d at 459, 2018 WL 4784069 at *2. We followed that precedent in Fleming v. State , 260 So.3d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), remanding for resentencing with concurrent minimum-mandatory sentences; and we do so again now.

REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.

Rowe, Osterhaus, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.  