
    Rufus Marcel ABRAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    CASE NO. 1D14-3291
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Opinion filed July 11, 2017
    Ross A. Keene of Ross Keene Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed Appellant’s sentence based on our en banc decision in Walton v. State, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), which held that mandatory mínimums under the 10-20-Life statute must be imposed consecutively regardless of whether the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm. However, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in this case and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016). See Abrams v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680, 2017 WL 2302328 (Fla. May 26, 2017).

In Williams, the Court held that “consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged." 186 So.3d at 993; accord Walton II, 208 So.3d at 64. But, the Court also held that “[i]f ... multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Williams, 186. So.3d at 993.

Here, the jury found Appellant guilty of discharging a firearm in each of the charged offenses. The offenses occurred in the same episode and involved multiple victims. Thus, the trial court had discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive mandatory minimum sentences in this case.

At sentencing, the trial court stated that it was bound by this court’s decision in Walton I to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. However, the court also stated that it would not have imposed consecutive mandatory mínimums if it was not compelled to do so. Accordingly, because it is clear the trial court would not have imposed the same sentence if it was not bound by Walton I, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentenc-ing in accordance with Williams and Walton II.

We affirm the remaining issues on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.  