Joe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joe v. State

668 So. 2d 325, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1516, 1996 WL 72187

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

DocketNo. 94-02585

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 668 So. 2d 325 (Joe 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

Joe v. State, 668 So. 2d 325, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1516, 1996 WL 72187 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ernest R. Joe, Jr., appeals his numerous convictions and sentences arising out of a home invasion in August 1992. We affirm Mr. Joe’s convictions, but reverse and remand for resentencing.

The trial court imposed habitual violent felony offender sentences for some of Mr. Joe’s convictions, but erroneously ordered those sentences to run consecutively. Habitual violent felony offender sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 180 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). Next, the trial court correctly determined that the two life felony offenses were not eligible for habitual offender sentences. Dixon v. State, 659 So.2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The sentencing guidelines scoresheet prepared for Mr. Joe’s two life felonies included points for all of the convictions for which he received habitual violent offender sentences. Those offenses cannot be included on this scoresheet. Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Thus, on remand, the trial court must resentence Mr. Joe’s two life felony offenses using a correct scoresheet.

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

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ernest R. Joe, Jr., appeals his numerous convictions and sentences arising out of a home invasion in August 1992. We affirm Mr. Joe’s convictions, but reverse and remand for resentencing.

The trial court imposed habitual violent felony offender sentences for some of Mr. Joe’s convictions, but erroneously ordered those sentences to run consecutively. Habitual violent felony offender sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 180 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). Next, the trial court correctly determined that the two life felony offenses were not eligible for habitual offender sentences. Dixon v. State, 659 So.2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The sentencing guidelines scoresheet prepared for Mr. Joe’s two life felonies included points for all of the convictions for which he received habitual violent offender sentences. Those offenses cannot be included on this scoresheet. Ricardo v. State, 608 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Thus, on remand, the trial court must resentence Mr. Joe’s two life felony offenses using a correct scoresheet.

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

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 325, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1516, 1996 WL 72187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack