Amores v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amores v. State

664 So. 2d 48, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12538, 1995 WL 712993

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 1995

DocketNo. 94-898

StatusPublished

This text of 664 So. 2d 48 (Amores v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amores v. State, 664 So. 2d 48, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12538, 1995 WL 712993 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Braulio Ernesto Amores appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary, armed kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of armed sexual battery. We affirm the convictions but remand for correction of the sentences ordered.

Amores claims the lower court erred when it required him, under State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), to provide his reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge and subsequently disallowed that challenge. However, because “he affirmatively accepted the jury immediately prior to its being sworn without reservation of his earlier-made objection,” the issue has not been preserved for review. Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); Portela v. State, 661 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cruz v. State, 660 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

We agree however, and the state concedes, that error occurred with respect to the defendant’s sentences. “[O]nce the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been en[49]*49hanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should [not] then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.” Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993); see Cruz, 660 So.2d at 793. Because Amores’ two armed robbery convictions arose out of a single criminal episode, that portion of the trial court’s order which made the habitual offender sentences for each armed robbery run consecutively was error. On remand, the order should be corrected so that the armed robbery sentences run concurrently.

Affirmed in part, and remanded for correction of the error outlined herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Braulio Ernesto Amores appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary, armed kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of armed sexual battery. We affirm the convictions but remand for correction of the sentences ordered.

Amores claims the lower court erred when it required him, under State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), to provide his reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge and subsequently disallowed that challenge. However, because “he affirmatively accepted the jury immediately prior to its being sworn without reservation of his earlier-made objection,” the issue has not been preserved for review. Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); Portela v. State, 661 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cruz v. State, 660 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

We agree however, and the state concedes, that error occurred with respect to the defendant’s sentences. “[O]nce the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been en[49]*49hanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should [not] then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.” Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993); see Cruz, 660 So.2d at 793. Because Amores’ two armed robbery convictions arose out of a single criminal episode, that portion of the trial court’s order which made the habitual offender sentences for each armed robbery run consecutively was error. On remand, the order should be corrected so that the armed robbery sentences run concurrently.

Affirmed in part, and remanded for correction of the error outlined herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 48, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12538, 1995 WL 712993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amores-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack