KENNETH SIRMANS, 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.
Court affirmed grand theft convictions but reversed consecutive habitual felony offender sentences, requiring them to run concurrently because both offenses arose from a single criminal episode.
Enhanced sentences under the habitual felony offender law cannot be imposed consecutively for offenses arising from a single criminal episode.
[1] Enhanced sentences pursuant to the habitual felony offender law may not be imposed consecutively for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of two counts of grand theft and sentenced to consecutive 10-year habitual felony offender sentences.…
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 Single Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal from convictions for two counts of grand theft and consecutive 10-year habitual felony offender sentences, appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the record satisfies us that no good-faith argument can be made that reversible error occurred regarding either of appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions without further discussion.
However, subsequent to appellant’s sentencing, the supreme court decided that enhanced sentences pursuant to the habitual felony offender law may not be imposed consecutively for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993); Brooks v. State, 630 So. 2d 527 (Fla.1993). Our review of the record satisfies us that appellant’s two grand theft convictions arose out of a single criminal episode. Therefore, it was error to sentence appellant to consecutive habitual felony offender terms. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentences, and remand with di rections that the habitual felony offender terms be imposed to run concurrently.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
MINER, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Two other districts appear to have applied Hale to sentences that were not habitual violent offender sentences. See Goshay v. State, 19 Fla.L.Weekly D1715, 1994 WL 419574 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 12, 1994); Sirmans v. State, 638 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Anderson v. State, 637 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In accordance with the above reasoning and authorities, we hold the trial court erred in failing to apply Hale to a habitual felony offender sentence. II. THE NEW RULE IN H…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Brooks v. State, 630 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1993)