Bonard v. State

666 So. 2d 597, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 404, 1996 WL 23598
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 24, 1996·No. Nos. 95-3643, 95-3645·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The denial of the petitioner’s 3.850 motion is hereby affirmed. However, because the trial court reserved ruling, pending resolution by the Florida Supreme Court, as to the third issue raised by the petitioner regarding the legality of enhancing sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode by both sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender and ordering that the sentences be served consecutively, we remand this cause for disposition of this issue in accordance with State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1995), approving 645 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Parker, 660 So.2d 1393 (Fla.1995), approving 651 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); and Simmons v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S509 (Fla. Oct. 5, 1995), approving 650 So.2d 126 (Fla.1995).

Affirmed and remanded.

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

Bonard v. State, 666 So. 2d 597, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 404, 1996 WL 23598 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

666 So. 2d 597 (Bonard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. State
645 So. 2d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Simmons v. State
650 So. 2d 126 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Parker v. State
651 So. 2d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State v. Parker
660 So. 2d 1393 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)