ANTHONY DEWAYNE HOISE, 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.
Anthony Dewayne Hoise was convicted by jury of multiple violent crimes and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed the consecutive 30-year sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding it must run concurrently because the offense arose from the same criminal episode as his enhanced sentences.
The court held that the 30-year sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively, because the offense constituted a continuing offense inseparable from the other crimes committed in the same criminal episode and lacked a statutory minimum mandatory sentence.
[1] A habitual felony offender sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon must be imposed concurrently when the offense arises from the same criminal episode a…
[2] A trial court errs in imposing a consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon when that offense is inseparable from other crimes committed during…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“once the [*623] sentences of a habitual violent felony offender were enhanced for crimes committed during a single criminal episode, the total penalty could not be increased further by ordering sentences to run consecutively, where the original statutory provisions governing the offenses contained no provision authorizing the imposed punishment”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Hale v. State that prohibits consecutive sentencing enhancements for habitual offenders when offenses arise from a single criminal episode
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoise was tried and convicted by jury of attempted aggravated assault with a firearm on law enforcement officers (Counts I & II), aggravated assault w…
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 Fleeing Or Attempting To Elude A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Dewayne Hoise (Appellant) was tried by a jury and found guilty of 1) attempted aggravated assault with a firearm on a law enforcement officer (Counts I & II); 2) aggravated assault with a firearm (upon Desmond Beasley) (Count III); 3) attempted resisting a law enforcement officer without violence (Count IV); and 4) fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer (Count VI). Immediately after the verdict, Appellant pled nolo contendere to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count V). He was classified and sentenced to enhanced terms as a habitual felony offender.
Appellant asserts, and the state concedes, that the trial court reversibly erred in imposing the 30-year term of imprisonment in Count V to run consecutively.
We agree. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993) (once the sentences of a habitual violent felony offender were enhanced for crimes committed during a single criminal episode, the total penalty could not be increased further by ordering sentences to run consecutively, where the original statutory provisions governing the offenses contained no provision authorizing the imposed punishment); Brooks v. State, 630 So. 2d 527 (Fla.1993); Lucas v. State, 630 So. 2d 597, 600-01 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
The state’s evidence demonstrates that Count V involves a continuing offense that is inseparable from the attempted aggravated assaults on the officers and the aggravated assault on Beasley. As was true of the offenses in Hale, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon does not contain a statutory minimum mandatory sentence. § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1991). Because the offense of possession of a firearm arose from the same criminal episode as the other crimes for which Appellant received habitual felony offender sentences, the 30-year term of imprisonment in Count V should have been imposed concurrently. Hale, 630 So. 2d at 524-25; Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1993).
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence in Count V and remand this case with instructions that this enhanced sentence be imposed concurrently. The judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED, with directions.
MINER, BARFIELD and MICKLE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Troutman v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Edler v. State, 630 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1993)
- Brooks v. State, 630 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1993)
- Lucas v. State, 630 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)