ARTHUR LEE HENRY, 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.
Arthur Lee Henry appeals the trial court's denial of successive postconviction relief motions filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded on the issue of whether Henry's consecutive habitual felony offender sentences violated Hale v. State, which prohibits consecutive sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal episode.
The court reversed and remanded on the Hale sentencing issue because under Callaway v. State, the Hale rule may be retroactively raised pursuant to Rule 3.850 during the two-year period following Hale. The trial court must determine whether Henry's crimes were committed during a single criminal episode, and if it denies relief, must either attach conclusively refuting record portions or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant may raise the prohibition against consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for crimes committed during the same criminal episode under rule 3.850 within…
[2] A trial court must attach record portions that refute a defendant's allegations when denying postconviction relief without a hearing.
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“the rule of Hale may be retroactively "raised under oath pursuant to rule 3.850 during the two-year period following Hale."”
Establishes that the Hale sentencing prohibition can be raised in postconviction motions within a specific time window.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1990, Henry was sentenced to consecutive habitual felony offender sentences (totaling 25 years) for three crimes: carrying a concealed firearm,…
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
LAZZARA, Judge.
Arthur Lee Henry appeals the trial court’s order denying as successive two motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although we realize that Henry has inundated the trial court with numerous motions seeking relief from his sentences, we are compelled to reverse and remand under our recent opinion in Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), for a determination of whether his sentences were imposed in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), which prohibits the imposition of consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during the same criminal episode. We otherwise affirm.
Henry alleged that in May of 1990 the trial court sentenced him to consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of cocaine.1 He claims that these crimes were committed during the course of a single criminal episode. Although he does not cite to Hale, he asserts that the Florida Supreme Court has determined that such a sentencing scheme is contrary to legislative intent.
We recently held in Callaway that the rule of Hale may be retroactively “raised under oath pursuant to rule 3.850 during the two-year period following Hale.” Callaway, 642 So. 2d at 641. The Hale sentencing issue raised in Henry’s motion clearly falls within the ambit of Callaway.
Accordingly, we reverse as to that issue and remand for further proceedings. On remand, if the trial court again denies Henry relief without a hearing, it must attach to its order those portions of the record that conclusively refute his allegations. Otherwise, an evidentiary hearing will be necessary to determine whether Henry in fact committed his crimes during the course of a single criminal episode. See Willis v. State, 640 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (addressing the concept of what constitutes a “single criminal episode”). Anyone aggrieved by the trial court’s subsequent action must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . Henry does not specify how much prison time he received for each offense, only that his total sentence was twenty-five years.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hubbel v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 758 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2000)…ls, 704 So. 2d at 1373 (relying on the definition of “insurer” set forth in section 624.03, Florida Statutes (1995)). Although Nichols involved a surety on a guardianship bond, this Court disapproved Dealers Insurance Co. v. Centennial Casualty Co., 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), which involved a surety on a motor vehicle dealer bond under section 320.27(10), “to the extent that [Dealers ] holds that section 627.428 does not apply to sureties.” Nichols, 704 So. 2d at 1374. In fact, this Court has consist…1 / 2
-
Nichols v. Preferred Nat'l Ins. Co., 704 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1997)…section 627.428(1), applies in such cases.” Nichols, 682 So. 2d at 586. In reaching its decision, the district court noted that the Fifth District Court of Appeal had reached a contrary conclusion in Dealers Insurance Co. v. Centennial Casualty Co., 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(section 627.428 does not apply to surety of motor vehicle bonds), review denied, 658 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1995). The application of section 627.428 to guardianship bonds is an issue of first impression for this Court. We find, howeve…
-
Gentry v. State, 659 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ntiary determination. Gentry’s Hale issue must be disposed of in a Rule 3.850 proceeding. If the trial court summarily denies his motion on remand, the trial court should attach the portions of the record which refute his claim. See Henry v. State, 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . The trial court denied Gentry's earlier Rule 3.800(a) motion based on its finding that the offenses were separate and distinct and the evidence involved diff…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Donnie Willis v. State, 640 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)