Hooks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hooks v. State

613 So. 2d 607, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1857, 1993 WL 38181

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1393

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 607 (Hooks 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

Hooks v. State, 613 So. 2d 607, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1857, 1993 WL 38181 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State correctly conceded that two errors were committed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant in this case.

First, the trial court erroneously entered a general sentence apparently intended to cover all three counts for which the defendant was convicted. This general sentence must be vacated and, upon remand, the trial court should enter individual sentences for each of the three separate offenses. See Valiente v. State, 605 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Second, by virtue of having entered a general sentence to cover all three offenses, the trial court appears to have sentenced the defendant to a sentence of 40 years in connection with Count III, which relates to the offense of false imprisonment. As acknowledged by the State, if [608]*608the trial court wishes to habitualize the defendant in connection with false imprisonment, the maximum sentence that could be imposed against the defendant in connection with that charge would be ten years imprisonment. § 775'.084(4)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (1991). Naturally, the trial court would be permitted to enter a 40 year prison sentence for either Count I and/or Count II if the trial court habitualizes the defendant in connection with either or both of those offenses.

Accordingly, the foregoing sentences are vacated and this cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State correctly conceded that two errors were committed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant in this case.

First, the trial court erroneously entered a general sentence apparently intended to cover all three counts for which the defendant was convicted. This general sentence must be vacated and, upon remand, the trial court should enter individual sentences for each of the three separate offenses. See Valiente v. State, 605 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Second, by virtue of having entered a general sentence to cover all three offenses, the trial court appears to have sentenced the defendant to a sentence of 40 years in connection with Count III, which relates to the offense of false imprisonment. As acknowledged by the State, if [608]*608the trial court wishes to habitualize the defendant in connection with false imprisonment, the maximum sentence that could be imposed against the defendant in connection with that charge would be ten years imprisonment. § 775'.084(4)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (1991). Naturally, the trial court would be permitted to enter a 40 year prison sentence for either Count I and/or Count II if the trial court habitualizes the defendant in connection with either or both of those offenses.

Accordingly, the foregoing sentences are vacated and this cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 607, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1857, 1993 WL 38181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack