In Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983), defendant Palmer was convicted of thirteen counts of robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of carrying a concealed firearm after robbing mourners at a funeral parlor during a wake. 438 So. 2d at 2. In addition to the other sentences for other charges, the trial court sentenced him to a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for each robbery for a total of thirty-nine years mandatory time on the robbery charges. Id. The statutory authority for the mandatory minimums was apparently derived from a firearm enhancement statute, section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1981); another statute, section 775.021(4), Florida Statutes (1981), provided that trial judges were allowed to issue consecutive prison sentences for separate offenses occurring during the same criminal episode. 438 So. 2d at 3. Thus, since Palmer robbed thirteen individuals at gunpoint at the funeral home in one criminal episode, the trial judge imposed thirteen consecutive three-year mandatory terms for the robberies. Id. The Court reversed, however, ruling that the applicable firearm enhancement sentencing statute did not authorize a trial court to deny a defendant the eligibility for parole for a period greater than three calendar years, and accordingly the robbery sentences could only be imposed concurrently. Id. at 3-4. In Palmer v. State, the defendant walked into a funeral parlor during a wake, brandished a gun, and ordered the mourners to throw their valuables on the floor. He was convicted of thirteen counts of robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of carrying a concealed firearm. As to the robbery counts, the trial court sentenced Palmer to seventy-five years of imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively, for a total of 975 years. Id. at 2. The court also imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of three years on each robbery count, for a total of thirty-nine years, without eligibility for parole. The Court reversed the three-year mandatory minimum sentences on each of the thirteen consecutive sentences, holding that section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1981), did not authorize a trial court to deny a defendant the eligibility for parole for a period greater than three calendar years. Id. at 3. As the Court explained, the executive branch has the exclusive power to grant paroles or conditional releases, and the Legislature can mandate through statute that certain convicted persons serve a certain amount of their sentence without eligibility for parole. Id. However, while courts can impose the mandatory minimum terms already authorized, they are not permitted to exceed such terms by imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms in such circumstances without explicit authority. The Court noted that by imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms, the trial court sentenced Palmer to thirty-nine years without eligibility for parole based on a statute that expressly authorized denial of eligibility for parole for only three years. Palmer, 438 So. 2d at 3. The Courtfurther clarified our holding as follows: "we do not prohibit the imposition of multiple concurrent three-year minimum mandatory sentences upon conviction of separate offenses included under subsection 775.087(2), nor do we prohibit consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for offenses arising from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places." Id. at 4. The Court held that a defendant could not be sentenced to consecutive minimum mandatory sentences under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1981), if the separate sentences arose from a single criminal episode. 438 So. 2d at 3-4. The defendant in Palmer brandished a revolver while he robbed mourners at a funeral and was convicted of thirteen counts of robbery. Id. at 2. Section 775.087(2) mandated a three-year minimum sentence for any person who possessed a firearm during the commission of certain enumerated felonies, one of which was robbery. The trial court imposed the three-year minimum mandatory sentence for each of thirteen robbery counts, with the sentences to run consecutively, for a total minimum mandatory sentence of thirty-nine years. Id. at 2. However, the Court held that the consecutive sentencing was illegal because the language of section 775.087(2) authorized courts to deny defendants parole eligibility for only three years, but with consecutive sentencing the defendant would not become eligible for parole for thirty-nine years. Id. at 3. The Court based this conclusion on the rule of construction that anything "not clearly and intelligently described" in a penal statute and "manifestly intended by the Legislature" will not be considered included within the terms of the statute. Id.