State v. Ferreira

840 So. 2d 304, 2003 WL 255402
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 7, 2003
Docket5D02-2396
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 840 So. 2d 304 (State v. Ferreira) 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
State v. Ferreira, 840 So. 2d 304, 2003 WL 255402 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

840 So.2d 304 (2003)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. FERREIRA, Appellee.

No. 5D02-2396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

February 7, 2003.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 2003.

*305 Charlie J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lamya A. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

HARRIS, C., Senior Judge.

In this "much ado about nothing" case, the State appeals contending the court erred in correcting its previous sentence which made an habitual offender sentence run consecutively with a sentence imposed for another conviction arising out of one criminal incident. In this case, Ferreira was sentenced on a first degree murder conviction to life in prison without parole. He was also sentenced on an attempted armed robbery conviction as an habitual offender to a consecutive thirty year prison term. Our supreme court held in Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), that sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single incident which are enhanced through classifying the defendant as an habitual offender may not be increased further by imposing consecutive sentences.

The State urges that Hale should not apply because Ferreira was classified as an habitual offender on only one of the convictions, attempted armed robbery. However, it seems axiomatic that whether the first degree murder sentence runs consecutive to the armed robbery sentence or whether the armed robbery sentence runs consecutive to the first degree murder sentence, the overall sentence has been enhanced twice because of the classification as an habitual offender. We agree with the trial court that Hale applies and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, J., concurs.

PETERSON, J., concurs in result only.

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

Related

Dyson v. State
959 So. 2d 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Dyson v. State
934 So. 2d 548 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
840 So. 2d 304, 2003 WL 255402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ferreira-fladistctapp-2003.