Short v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Short v. State

696 So. 2d 398, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6287, 1997 WL 327974

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1055

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 398 (Short 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

Short v. State, 696 So. 2d 398, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6287, 1997 WL 327974 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences as an habitual offender resulting from the same criminal episode in September 1992. After numerous appeals and motions for postconviction relief, appellant seeks a rehearing under the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) (once defendant’s sentences for multiple crimes committed during single criminal episode were enhanced through habitual felony offender statutes, total penalty could not be further increased by ordering that sentences run consecutively; sentences should run concurrently), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). We find the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for each of the offenses to be error. See State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995); Parrish v. State, 665 So.2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Smith v. State, 650 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences as an habitual offender resulting from the same criminal episode in September 1992. After numerous appeals and motions for postconviction relief, appellant seeks a rehearing under the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) (once defendant’s sentences for multiple crimes committed during single criminal episode were enhanced through habitual felony offender statutes, total penalty could not be further increased by ordering that sentences run consecutively; sentences should run concurrently), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). We find the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for each of the offenses to be error. See State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995); Parrish v. State, 665 So.2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Smith v. State, 650 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 398, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6287, 1997 WL 327974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack