Nickerson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nickerson v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1996

DocketNo. 96-01479

StatusPublished

This text of 684 So. 2d 252 (Nickerson 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

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

Pincite

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]*253DCA 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]*253DCA 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 252, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12789, 1996 WL 691691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickerson-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack