James v. State

778 So. 2d 457, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1350, 2001 WL 124986
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in James v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 721 So. 2d 1265
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 14, 2001·No. No. 4D99-3044·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Tim James, appeals his convictions for robbery with a weapon and carjacking arguing that the trial court erred in sentencing him as both a Habitual Felony Offender (“HFO”) and as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (“PRR”). We find no double jeopardy violation and affirm his convictions on authority of Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000). The state concedes, however, that the imposition of equal concurrent sentences violates the express provisions of the PRR Act. Grant. The Grant court cited with approval Walls v. State, 765 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) in which the First District found that the trial court erred in entering two concurrent, equal sentences. Thus we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to delete the HFO sentence.

FARMER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

James v. State, 778 So. 2d 457, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1350, 2001 WL 124986 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

778 So. 2d 457 (James v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walls v. State
765 So. 2d 733 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Grant v. State
770 So. 2d 655 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)