Nickerson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nickerson v. State

684 So. 2d 252, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1996 WL 691691

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 4, 1996·No. No. 96-01479·Published

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

Kenneth Nickerson challenges the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences for attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools because the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode. We agree. See Spillane v. State, 647 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d [253] DCA 1994) (trial court cannot impose consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses occurring in same criminal episode). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of Nickerson’s sentences to reflect that the sentences shall be served concurrently. Nickerson need not be present.

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

Kenneth Nickerson challenges the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. He argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences for attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools because the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode. We agree. See Spillane v. State, 647 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d [253] DCA 1994) (trial court cannot impose consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses occurring in same criminal episode). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of Nickerson’s sentences to reflect that the sentences shall be served concurrently. Nickerson need not be present.

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Nickerson v. State, 684 So. 2d 252, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1996 WL 691691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

684 So. 2d 252 (Nickerson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related