Weitz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weitz v. State

196 So. 3d 466, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9781, 2016 WL 3459011

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 2016

Docket2D14-5266

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 So. 3d 466 (Weitz 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

Weitz v. State, 196 So. 3d 466, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9781, 2016 WL 3459011 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SLEET, Judge.

Joseph Weitz challenges his convictions and sentences for transmitting material harmful to minors to a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. Weitz was convicted following jury trial, and the trial court sentenced him as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to ten years’ prison on the transmitting harmful material count and to a consecutive five-year non-HFO term on the two-way communications device count. We affirm Weitz’s conviction for transmitting material harmful to minors to a minor for the reasons set forth by this court in Duclos-Lasnier v. State, 2D15-2415, 2016 WL 3057352 (Fla. 2d DCA May 27, 2016), and affirm his conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device without further comment.

However, the trial court erred in running Weitz’s non-HFO sentence for unlawful use of a two-way device consecutively to his HFO sentence for transmitting harmful material when both charges arose out of the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 525 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we must reverse Weitz’s sentences. We remand with instructions to the trial court to run the sentences concurrently. See id. at 526; Saldana v. State, 139 So.3d 351, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

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

SLEET, Judge.

Joseph Weitz challenges his convictions and sentences for transmitting material harmful to minors to a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. Weitz was convicted following jury trial, and the trial court sentenced him as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to ten years’ prison on the transmitting harmful material count and to a consecutive five-year non-HFO term on the two-way communications device count. We affirm Weitz’s conviction for transmitting material harmful to minors to a minor for the reasons set forth by this court in Duclos-Lasnier v. State, 2D15-2415, 2016 WL 3057352 (Fla. 2d DCA May 27, 2016), and affirm his conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device without further comment.

However, the trial court erred in running Weitz’s non-HFO sentence for unlawful use of a two-way device consecutively to his HFO sentence for transmitting harmful material when both charges arose out of the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 525 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, we must reverse Weitz’s sentences. We remand with instructions to the trial court to run the sentences concurrently. See id. at 526; Saldana v. State, 139 So.3d 351, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 So. 3d 466, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9781, 2016 WL 3459011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weitz-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack