When someone is sentenced in more than one criminal case, a basic question follows: do the prison terms run at the same time, or one after the other? The answer can change how long a person actually spends in custody.
Florida law sets a default rule for this situation, and that default matters most when the different sentences come from separate charging documents rather than a single case. Understanding the default helps explain why some sentences stack on top of one another.
This educational post looks at Kennedy v. Comerford, a recent decision from Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. The court issued a brief opinion affirming the lower court and pointing to the statute that governs how these separate sentences are served.
Key Takeaway
Under Florida law, prison sentences for offenses that were not charged in the same document generally run one after another (consecutively) unless a court specifically orders them to run at the same time (concurrently).
What happened in this case?
Daniel W. Kennedy, representing himself, appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Leon County in a matter involving the Florida Department of Corrections. The First District Court of Appeal reviewed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The appellate court’s opinion is short. Rather than write a lengthy explanation, the panel affirmed and cited a single Florida statute as the basis for its decision.
What rule did the court rely on?
The court pointed to section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes. That statute addresses how sentences are served when they come from different charging documents.
In plain terms, the statute says that sentences of imprisonment for offenses not charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit are served consecutively — one after the other — unless the court directs that two or more of them be served concurrently.
Consecutive vs. concurrent
Consecutive means the terms are served back-to-back, so the total time adds up. Concurrent means the terms overlap and are served during the same period. The statute makes consecutive the default for offenses charged separately, unless the court orders otherwise.
What did the court decide?
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed. By citing section 921.16(1), the panel indicated that the statutory default for sentences arising from separate charging documents supported the outcome below.
Because the opinion is a brief per curiam affirmance, it does not lay out detailed facts or extended reasoning. The statute itself carries the explanation.
Why does this matter to the public?
The way sentences stack affects the total length of incarceration. For anyone trying to understand a sentencing outcome, the distinction between consecutive and concurrent terms is central.
This decision is a reminder that Florida’s default treats separately charged offenses as producing consecutive sentences unless a judge specifically orders them to run together. That default is written into the statute, not left to assumption.
The bottom line
The court affirmed and grounded its ruling in section 921.16(1), which sets a consecutive-sentence default for offenses not charged in the same document. The general lesson is about how that statutory default operates — not about any particular person’s situation.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.