State v. Champagne

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Champagne

666 So. 2d 130, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 509, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1606, 1995 WL 583722

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 1995

DocketNo. 85479

StatusPublished

This text of 666 So. 2d 130 (State v. Champagne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Champagne, 666 So. 2d 130, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 509, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1606, 1995 WL 583722 (Fla. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Champagne v. State, 651 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), in which the district court vacated Bob Michael Champagne’s sentence and certified the following question as being one of great public importance:

Whether Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, [— U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994)], precludes under all circumstances the imposition of consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode for [131]*131habitual felony or habitual violent felony offenders.

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1995), we have answered this same certified question in the affirmative. For the reasons set forth in Hill, we approve the district court’s decision in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

WELLS, J., dissents.

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