Holsworth v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holsworth v. State

796 So. 2d 1232, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14624, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2456

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 2001

DocketNo. 4D01-784

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 796 So. 2d 1232 (Holsworth 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

Holsworth v. State, 796 So. 2d 1232, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14624, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2456 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from an order entered in the circuit court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender on his armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions. These sentences were to be served consecutive to each other and consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder.

We reverse on the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993) (“We [1233]*1233find nothing in the language of the habitual offender statute which suggests that ... once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.”). See State v. Ames, 467 So.2d 994, 995-96 (Fla.1985) (involving analysis of whether burglary was “separate and distinct” from sexual battery for the purpose of consecutive imposition of mandatory minimum sentences). We remand the case with directions that the life sentences on the armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions shall run concurrently.

POLEN, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from an order entered in the circuit court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender on his armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions. These sentences were to be served consecutive to each other and consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder.

We reverse on the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993) (“We [1233]*1233find nothing in the language of the habitual offender statute which suggests that ... once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.”). See State v. Ames, 467 So.2d 994, 995-96 (Fla.1985) (involving analysis of whether burglary was “separate and distinct” from sexual battery for the purpose of consecutive imposition of mandatory minimum sentences). We remand the case with directions that the life sentences on the armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions shall run concurrently.

POLEN, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

796 So. 2d 1232, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14624, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holsworth-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack