Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. State

925 So. 2d 451, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5283, 2006 WL 908173

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 2006

DocketNo. 1D04-3592

StatusPublished

This text of 925 So. 2d 451 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 925 So. 2d 451, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5283, 2006 WL 908173 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts that the trial court reversibly erred by imposing consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentences, each-with a minimum mandatory term of imprisonment, for offenses that arose from a single briminal episode. We agree as to counts III and IV. We, therefore, reverse the sentences as to those counts and remand for imposition of concurrent sentences as to counts III and IV. However, we conclude that the other offenses occurred during separate criminal episodes [452]*452and uphold the consecutive sentences imposed as to those offenses. Because the criminal episode giving rise to the offenses charged in counts III and IV was separate from the criminal episodes giving rise to the remaining counts, the trial court is directed on remand to run the concurrent terms for counts III and IV consecutive to the sentences originally imposed on the remaining counts. Appellant need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting his sentences. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KAHN, C.J., WOLF, and PADOVANO, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts that the trial court reversibly erred by imposing consecutive habitual violent felony offender sentences, each-with a minimum mandatory term of imprisonment, for offenses that arose from a single briminal episode. We agree as to counts III and IV. We, therefore, reverse the sentences as to those counts and remand for imposition of concurrent sentences as to counts III and IV. However, we conclude that the other offenses occurred during separate criminal episodes [452]*452and uphold the consecutive sentences imposed as to those offenses. Because the criminal episode giving rise to the offenses charged in counts III and IV was separate from the criminal episodes giving rise to the remaining counts, the trial court is directed on remand to run the concurrent terms for counts III and IV consecutive to the sentences originally imposed on the remaining counts. Appellant need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting his sentences. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KAHN, C.J., WOLF, and PADOVANO, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 So. 2d 451, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5283, 2006 WL 908173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.