JAVIER CODECIDO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Codecido's first-degree murder conviction is affirmed, but his consecutive life sentence is reversed and remanded for imposition of a concurrent sentence, as the State conceded sentencing error.
A consecutive life sentence for first-degree murder must be reversed and imposed concurrently with prior sentences for armed burglary and shooting into an occupied dwelling when the State confesses sentencing error.
[1] When the State confesses sentencing error, a consecutive sentence must be reversed and remanded for imposition as a concurrent sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCodecido was convicted of first-degree murder after retrial on remand. He had previously been convicted of armed burglary and shooting into an occupie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Shooting Into An Occupied Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Javier Codecido appeals his conviction and sentence for first degree murder after retrial of that charge on remand from Alfonso v. State, 528 So. 2d 383 (Fla.3d DCA), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1988). In the prior appeal this court affirmed Co-decido’s convictions and concurrent sentences for armed burglary and shooting into an occupied dwelling. After Codecido was again convicted of the murder charge, the trial court imposed a life sentence to run consecutive to the previously imposed sentences for burglary and shooting into an occupied dwelling. The State confesses error with respect to the imposition of a consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentence. See Alfonso v. State, 561 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla.3d DCA 1990). We therefore reverse the sentencing order insofar as it imposed a consecutive sentence and remand with instructions to impose a life sentence to run concurrent with the sentences for armed burglary and shooting into an occupied dwelling.
Codecido’s contention that the trial court was precluded from seeking the death penalty on remand from his prior appeal is without merit in light of his counsel’s entirely correct concession to the contrary in the prior appeal. See Alfonso v. State, 528 So. 2d at 385 n. 3. No reversible error has been shown with respect to the regulation of voir dire by the trial court. See Peri v. State, 426 So. 2d 1021, 1025 (Fla.3d DCA), review denied, 436 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1983).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peri v. State, 426 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Jose Angel "Pepe" Alfonso and Javier Codecido v. State, 528 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Alfonso v. State, 561 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)