Carr v. State
673 So. 2d 189, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5117, 1996 WL 252865
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Carr v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13407 →
Opinion
The points raised by the defendant attacking his conviction lack merit. However, as the State properly concedes, pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to a consecutive habitual offender sentence. Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but his sentence is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Carr v. State, 673 So. 2d 189, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5117, 1996 WL 252865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).
673 So. 2d 189 (Carr v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hale v. State
630 So. 2d 521 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)