Young v. State

671 So. 2d 277, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3749, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 891
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Young v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 616 So. 2d 1133
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 10, 1996·No. No. 94-04565·Published

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

Lorenzo Young appeals from his consecutive sentences as a habitual felony offender for burglary of a structure and grand theft. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual felony offender sentences when the two offenses occurred during a single criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Green v. State, 643 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Thus, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court impose concurrent sentences. We note for the purposes of resentencing that the trial court did not err in denying Young’s motion for recusal. After defense counsel moved for recusal, the trial court properly denied the motion as legally insufficient, stated no other reason for the denial, and did not take issue with the motion. See Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.160(f).

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

Young v. State, 671 So. 2d 277, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3749, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 891 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

671 So. 2d 277 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hale v. State
630 So. 2d 521 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Green v. State
643 So. 2d 1177 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)