Trotter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Trotter v. State

652 So. 2d 481, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3071, 1995 WL 123677

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1995

DocketNo. 93-02197

StatusPublished

This text of 652 So. 2d 481 (Trotter 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

Trotter v. State, 652 So. 2d 481, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3071, 1995 WL 123677 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Abraham Trotter, challenges his judgments and sentences rendered after a jury trial for sexual battery,¹ burglary with an assault and battery,² and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.³ We reject his contentions in support of reversal and affirm his convictions. We determine, however, that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual felony offender sentences⁴ for burglary and aggravated assault because the record clearly shows that these crimes occurred during one criminal episode. E.g., Cain v. State, 642 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Thus, this enhanced sentencing scheme is in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). Dietrich v. State, 635 So.2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we remand for the entry of a sentencing order reflecting that these two sentences are to be served concurrently. The appellant need not be present for the correction of the sentencing order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for new sentencing order.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Abraham Trotter, challenges his judgments and sentences rendered after a jury trial for sexual battery,¹ burglary with an assault and battery,² and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.³ We reject his contentions in support of reversal and affirm his convictions. We determine, however, that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual felony offender sentences⁴ for burglary and aggravated assault because the record clearly shows that these crimes occurred during one criminal episode. E.g., Cain v. State, 642 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Thus, this enhanced sentencing scheme is in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). Dietrich v. State, 635 So.2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we remand for the entry of a sentencing order reflecting that these two sentences are to be served concurrently. The appellant need not be present for the correction of the sentencing order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for new sentencing order.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 481, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3071, 1995 WL 123677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trotter-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack