BRIAN KEITH LUNDY, 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.
Brian Lundy was convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences as a habitual violent offender. The appellate court reversed his sentence, holding that consecutive sentences cannot be imposed under the habitual offender statute when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode.
The court held that a trial court may not impose consecutive sentences under the habitual offender statute when crimes are committed in the same criminal episode. Because Lundy's three robberies occurred during one criminal episode, the consecutive sentencing enhancement violated this rule.
[1] A court may not impose consecutive sentences under the habitual offender act if the crimes were committed in the same criminal episode.
[2] Robberies of a safe and employees' wallets occurring immediately after and in the same immediate area constitute a single criminal episode.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a court may not impose consecutive sentences under the habitual offender act if the crimes were committed in the same criminal episode”
Statement of the core legal rule that governs the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLundy, armed with a gun, robbed a Golden Corral Restaurant manager of safe contents, then demanded and took wallets from three employees (the manager …
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Brian Lundy was convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm. He first challenges the denial of his motion to suppress statements made to a police officer. We find no error on this point and affirm without discussion. He also seeks review of his sentence, three consecutive terms of life imprisonment as a habitual violent offender. We reverse and remand for resentencing because a court may not impose consecutive sentences under the habitual offender act if the crimes were committed in the same criminal episode.
At trial, the evidence showed that Lundy, who was carrying a gun, approached an employee of the Golden Corral Restaurant, Mr. Vasquez, and asked to be taken to the manager. The employee led him to the office, where Lundy instructed the manager to open the safe and give him the contents. While this was occurring, another employee, Mr. Sedgwick, noticed Vasquez and the manager, Mr. Biscardi, in the office with a strange man and thought that the store was being robbed. Lundy saw him, and directed Sedgwick to come to the office as well. The manager handed Lundy money from the safe. He next demanded that the three employees give him their wallets, which they did. Lundy then ran out the back door. He was subsequently arrested and charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm; the first based on the robbery of Biscardi, the second on the robbery of Vasquez and the third on the robbery of Sedgwick.
We conclude that these robberies occurred in one criminal episode. The robbery of the employees’ wallets took place immediately after the robbery of the safe. All of the victims were in the immediate area of the office. See Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). Because Lundy was sentenced for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode, and because the trial court enhanced his sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), it may not further enhance his penalty by ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). We note that the trial court sentenced Lundy to three minimum mandatory terms for use of a firearm under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1991), and correctly ordered that those terms be served concurrently.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…st papers, records or files. Section 71.011 controls the establishment of lost documents “except when otherwise provided.” The lost promissory note was a negotiable instrument. § 673.1041(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). Thompson v. First Union National Bank, 643 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Establishing a lost negotiable instrument is governed by a different statute, section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (1993). The latter statute contains more stringent requirements than the former, and the trial court correctly conc…
-
Booker T. Perry and Betty J. Perry v. Fairbanks Cap. Corp., 888 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2002). See Mason v. Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat’l Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 643 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). A mortgage, on the other hand, does not fit into the definition of the documents required by section 90.952 to be produced in their original form, and may thu…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)