Hemphill v. State
654 So. 2d 301, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4875, 1995 WL 259158
Opinion
The consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed in Counts I and II are impermissible under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), therefore we REVERSE and REMAND for resentenc-ing on those two counts. Resentencing may include restructuring to provide for a proba[302]*302tionary period, see Jordan v. State, 568 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1990).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hemphill v. State, 654 So. 2d 301, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4875, 1995 WL 259158 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).
654 So. 2d 301 (Hemphill 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)
Jordan v. State
568 So. 2d 1011 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)