Criminal law -- Insanity -- Evidence -- Experts -- Sentencing -- 10-20-Life statute -- Consecutive sentences -- Minimum mandatory -- Defendant convicted of multiple counts of aggravated assault stemming from an incident in which defendant fired a single gunshot into the air in the presence of multiple victims with no physical injuries. Section 916.115(1)(a) did not preclude state's expert, who was not a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or physician, from testifying about defendant's sanity at trial. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that state's expert was qualified to testify. Defendant's consecutive sentences under 10-20-Life statute were illegal because, although a firearm was discharged and there were multiple victims, there were no distinct acts to effect bifurcation of the crimes for stacking purposes where each victim was victimized by the same single gunshot.