Pruitt v. State

801 So. 2d 143, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16387, 2001 WL 1471794
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 21, 2001
DocketNo. 4D00-15
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 801 So. 2d 143 (Pruitt 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
Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16387, 2001 WL 1471794 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges his multiple convictions and sentences resulting from an altercation with a victim and then further altercations with the pursuing police. We affirm.

As to the conviction, he claims that during trial the court erroneously admitted a hearsay statement as an excited utterance. While we agree that the statement was erroneously admitted, we conclude it was harmless.

He also claims that the court erroneously imposed consecutive sentences on two of the counts, arguing the Criminal Punishment Code precludes consecutive sentences for convictions arising out of the same criminal episode. We reject this argument, as the statute clearly permits the imposition of consecutive sentences. See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (“The permissible range for sentencing shall be the lowest permissible sentence up to and including the statutory maximum, as defined in s. 775.082, for the primary offense and any additional offenses before the court for sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or consecutively.” (Emphasis added)); see also § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999) (‘Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.” (Emphasis added)).

We affirm as to all other issues raised.

GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JEFFREY MC LAUGHLIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
MARK PORTER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
PAUL R. AARON, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
DASHAUN BROOKS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
HOWARD RICHMOND v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
ONIQUE WHITE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
ERIC A. WELCH v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
Bethune v. State
216 So. 3d 769 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Rojas v. State
202 So. 3d 447 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Small v. State
202 So. 3d 108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Thorson v. State
197 So. 3d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Lahey v. State
141 So. 3d 1246 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Johnson v. State
141 So. 3d 634 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Sawyer v. State
139 So. 3d 443 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Barber v. State
135 So. 3d 1125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Sousa v. State
139 So. 3d 323 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Moore v. State
859 So. 2d 613 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
801 So. 2d 143, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16387, 2001 WL 1471794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pruitt-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.