Sims v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sims v. State

675 So. 2d 714, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6840, 1996 WL 354625

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1996

DocketNo. 96-352

StatusPublished

This text of 675 So. 2d 714 (Sims 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

Sims v. State, 675 So. 2d 714, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6840, 1996 WL 354625 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The defendant appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The defendant’s claims are without merit, save one. The defendant alleges he was given improper consecutive enhanced habitual offender sentences in three separate cases. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993); Panda v. State, 647 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also, Benjamin v. State, 667 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

The record reflects that consecutive habitual offender sentences were imposed for two offenses in each of the three cases. Because the defendant’s allegations that in each case the offenses arose out of a single episode have not been refuted by any attachments to the trial court’s order, that portion of the order denying the defendant’s Hale claims is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either attach portions of the record to refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing. Massey v. State, 660 So.2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gentry v. State, 659 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The defendant appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The defendant’s claims are without merit, save one. The defendant alleges he was given improper consecutive enhanced habitual offender sentences in three separate cases. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993); Panda v. State, 647 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also, Benjamin v. State, 667 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

The record reflects that consecutive habitual offender sentences were imposed for two offenses in each of the three cases. Because the defendant’s allegations that in each case the offenses arose out of a single episode have not been refuted by any attachments to the trial court’s order, that portion of the order denying the defendant’s Hale claims is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either attach portions of the record to refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing. Massey v. State, 660 So.2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gentry v. State, 659 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 So. 2d 714, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6840, 1996 WL 354625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack