RONNIE KENNETH CLARK, 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.
Appellant's convictions for resisting arrest with violence and battery on law enforcement officers were affirmed, but consecutive enhanced sentences under the habitual offender statute were vacated and remanded to be made concurrent because the crimes arose from a single criminal episode.
A trial court may not impose consecutive enhanced sentences under Florida's habitual offender statute for crimes arising from a single criminal episode.
[1] A trial court may not impose consecutive enhanced sentences under the habitual offender statute for crimes arising from 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 intelligenceClark was convicted by jury of resisting arrest with violence, two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, and attempted depriving an officer …
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 Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
In this case, the appellant was convicted by a jury of resisting arrest with violence, two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, and attempted depriving an officer of his means of communication or radio. The appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, to three consecutive 10-year prison terms on counts I — III, for a total of 30 years. The offenses in count I (resisting arrest with violence) and counts II and III (battery on a law enforcement officer) all arose from a single incident.1 In Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), and Brooks v. State, 630 So. 2d 527 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court may not impose consecutive enhanced sentences under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, for crimes growing out of a single criminal episode. Accordingly, Clark’s enhanced sentences as to counts I — III are prohibited.
We affirm the convictions below, but vacate the sentences imposed on counts I — III, and remand with directions that the three consecutive sentences be made concurrent to one another. JOANOS and BENTON, JJ., concur. . A one-year prison sentence on count V and sentences for other counts to which the appellant pled were to run concurrent with the 30-year sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Brooks v. State, 630 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1993)