Stovall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stovall v. State

773 So. 2d 109, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16343, 2000 WL 1836766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 2000

DocketNo. 5D97-2556

StatusPublished

This text of 773 So. 2d 109 (Stovall 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

Stovall v. State, 773 So. 2d 109, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16343, 2000 WL 1836766 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

On the initial appeal, we refused to consider certain alleged sentencing errors because of our holding in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Because Maddox was reversed, these unresolved issues have been remanded to us for consideration. See Stovall v. State, 768 So.2d 444 (Fla.2000). Further, in the interim, the supreme court decided State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), which must now be considered in deciding the propriety of the original sentence.

We agree that it was error for the trial court to enter consecutive habitual offender sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal episode. See State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1995). We also find the court erred in ordering consecutive three year minimum mandatory sentences for possession of a firearm on sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal episode. See Preyer v. State, 575 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Finally, pursuant to Thompson, we find that it was error to impose habitual felony offender sentences on life felonies under chapter 95-182.

We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

On the initial appeal, we refused to consider certain alleged sentencing errors because of our holding in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Because Maddox was reversed, these unresolved issues have been remanded to us for consideration. See Stovall v. State, 768 So.2d 444 (Fla.2000). Further, in the interim, the supreme court decided State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), which must now be considered in deciding the propriety of the original sentence.

We agree that it was error for the trial court to enter consecutive habitual offender sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal episode. See State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1995). We also find the court erred in ordering consecutive three year minimum mandatory sentences for possession of a firearm on sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal episode. See Preyer v. State, 575 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Finally, pursuant to Thompson, we find that it was error to impose habitual felony offender sentences on life felonies under chapter 95-182.

We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 109, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16343, 2000 WL 1836766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stovall-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack