Hunnicutt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunnicutt v. State

766 So. 2d 1075, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7535, 2000 WL 783949

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-1780

StatusPublished

This text of 766 So. 2d 1075 (Hunnicutt 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

Hunnicutt v. State, 766 So. 2d 1075, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7535, 2000 WL 783949 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Ricky S. Hunnicutt appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We conclude that only one of his numerous contentions has merit and affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order without discussion.

In 1991 Mr. Hunnicutt was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling with assault, aggravated assault, and three counts of sexual battery during one criminal episode. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender with consecutive minimum mandatory terms for each count. While his case was on appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held in Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992), that the minimum mandatory provisions of multiple habitual violent offender sentences may not be imposed consecutively when the sentences arise from one criminal episode. Accordingly, this court reversed that aspect of Mr. Hunnicutt’s sentences and remanded his case with instructions to the trial court to impose the minimum mandatory terms concurrently. See Hunnicutt v. State, 622 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Mr. Hunnicutt now argues that the habitual violent offender sentences themselves may not also be imposed consecutively. We agree.

Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions emanating from one criminal episode may not be imposed consecutively. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). The Hale holding was given retroactive application by State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995). Mr. Hunnicutt’s ability to seek relief by a timely filed motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was recognized in Dixon v. State, 730 So.2d 265 (Fla.1999). Dixon held that a Hale challenge would be timely if it was made within two years of the Callaway mandate. Mr. Hunnicutt did so and, thus, his challenge is timely filed.

We have examined the special provisions of Mr. Hunnicutt’s amended sentencing orders imposed on remand from his prior appeal. The amended orders state that the habitual violent offender sentences imposed for counts one, two, four, five, and six shall run consecutively. This sentencing scheme violates Hale. Accordingly, we [1076]*1076reverse the sentences and remand for re-sentencing in conformity with Hale.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Ricky S. Hunnicutt appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We conclude that only one of his numerous contentions has merit and affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order without discussion.

In 1991 Mr. Hunnicutt was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling with assault, aggravated assault, and three counts of sexual battery during one criminal episode. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender with consecutive minimum mandatory terms for each count. While his case was on appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held in Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992), that the minimum mandatory provisions of multiple habitual violent offender sentences may not be imposed consecutively when the sentences arise from one criminal episode. Accordingly, this court reversed that aspect of Mr. Hunnicutt’s sentences and remanded his case with instructions to the trial court to impose the minimum mandatory terms concurrently. See Hunnicutt v. State, 622 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Mr. Hunnicutt now argues that the habitual violent offender sentences themselves may not also be imposed consecutively. We agree.

Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions emanating from one criminal episode may not be imposed consecutively. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). The Hale holding was given retroactive application by State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995). Mr. Hunnicutt’s ability to seek relief by a timely filed motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was recognized in Dixon v. State, 730 So.2d 265 (Fla.1999). Dixon held that a Hale challenge would be timely if it was made within two years of the Callaway mandate. Mr. Hunnicutt did so and, thus, his challenge is timely filed.

We have examined the special provisions of Mr. Hunnicutt’s amended sentencing orders imposed on remand from his prior appeal. The amended orders state that the habitual violent offender sentences imposed for counts one, two, four, five, and six shall run consecutively. This sentencing scheme violates Hale. Accordingly, we [1076]*1076reverse the sentences and remand for re-sentencing in conformity with Hale.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 So. 2d 1075, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7535, 2000 WL 783949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunnicutt-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack