Matthews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthews v. State

795 So. 2d 268, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13725, 2001 WL 1159580

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Matthews v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 736 So. 2d 72 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 2, 2001·No. No. 1D00-421·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges habitual offender sentences which were imposed for three offenses, with the sentences being made consecutive to each other. The record establishes that the offenses occurred during a single criminal episode. As the state concedes, Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), prohibits such consecutive sentencing in these circumstances. The challenged sentences are therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for resen-tencing.

ALLEN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges habitual offender sentences which were imposed for three offenses, with the sentences being made consecutive to each other. The record establishes that the offenses occurred during a single criminal episode. As the state concedes, Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), prohibits such consecutive sentencing in these circumstances. The challenged sentences are therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for resen-tencing.

ALLEN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Matthews v. State, 795 So. 2d 268, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13725, 2001 WL 1159580 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

795 So. 2d 268 (Matthews v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related