WILLIE MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that prior felony convictions entered on the same date qualify a defendant for habitual offender treatment, and consecutive habitual offender sentences are permissible even if the current offenses arose from a single episode.
Willie Marshall was convicted of robbery and aggravated battery and sentenced as a habitual offender. He appealed the sentences, arguing his prior con…
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 Sequential Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Willie Marshall was convicted of robbery and two counts of aggravated battery 1 and sentenced as a habitual offender to three consecutive thirty-year prison terms. He appeals those sentences claiming first that he does not qualify for habitual offender treatment under section 775.-084, Florida Statutes (1989), because the two prior felonies upon which the habituali-zation is based were entered on the same date. The supreme court has recently clarified this issue in State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992), holding that there is no requirement on the face of section 775.084 that the prior convictions be sequential. Thus, the appellant’s prior convictions for crimes committed on different dates, but for which he was convicted on the same date, do qualify him for habitual offender treatment. The trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant as a habitual offender. In his second issue, Marshall contends that because all his current convictions are based on offenses arising from a single episode, the trial court erred in ordering that his sentences be served consecutively. The appellant relies upon Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). Under the rule of Palmer, whether the crimes arose from a single episode2 is not dispositive here because there is no issue of consecutive minimum mandatory terms in the appellant’s habitual offender sentences. The imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences without minimum mandatory terms is not error. See Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992) (citing State v. Boatwright, 559 So. 2d 210, 213 (Fla.1990), citing Palmer, 438 So. 2d at 4).
Affirmed.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur. . He was also convicted of simple battery and resisting arrest without violence, but the sentencing for these convictions is not at issue in this appeal.
. Whether the crimes involved in the instant case arose from a single episode is not an issue addressed in this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knickerbocker v. State, 604 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…conclude that the trial court clearly possessed the power to impose consecutive sentences, notwithstanding the fact that all of the convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. Section 775.021(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). See Marshall v. State, 596 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We note, however, that should the trial court again decide to sentence appellant as an habitual violent felony offender for the burglary and kidnapping convictions, it is obliged to impose 15-year mandatory minimum sentences. Sec…
-
Knickerbocker v. State, 619 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…sentences, we conclude that the trial court possessed the power to impose consecutive sentences, notwithstanding the fact that all of the convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. § 775.021(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). See Marshall v. State, 596 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA1992). Mandatory minimum sentences imposed pursuant to the habitual offender statute must be imposed concurrently, rather than consecutively. Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992). However, no issue regarding mandatory minimum sent…
-
Rankin v. State, 620 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ed and enhanced accordingly. If this is what the legislature intended, it simply would have enhanced the penalties for all crimes rather than resorting to a “back-door” method of increasing prison sentences. 595 So. 2d at 25. In Marshall v. State, 596 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we sustained a habitual offender sentence on the authority of Barnes, noting that the defendant’s crimes had occurred on different dates though sentenced simultaneously. However, we did not explicitly foreclose the possibility th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Boatwright, 559 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1990)