RODERICK EVERETT MULLINS, 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.
Roderick Mullins appeals his convictions for armed burglary, sexual battery, and aggravated battery on an elderly person. The Florida Court of Appeal affirms his conviction and habitual offender designation but reverses his consecutive life sentences, holding that consecutive enhancement sentences cannot be imposed when offenses occur during a single criminal episode.
The court held that the trial court did not err in sentencing as a habitual offender because the applicable 1988 statute no longer required specific factual findings. However, the court held that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because when a sentence is enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute, consecutive sentences cannot be imposed if violations occurred during a single criminal episode.
[1] A postconviction motion to correct an illegal sentence must point to record facts showing that the charges arose from the same criminal episode.
[2] When a defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender on all charges arising from the same criminal episode, sentences must run concurrently.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“When a sentencing court enhances a sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the court may not further enhance the penalty by ordering the individual sentences to be served consecutively if the violations occurred during a single criminal episode.”
Establishes the key holding that consecutive sentences cannot compound habitual offender enhancements for crimes committed in a single episode
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMullins cut the window screen of a victim's residence, entered, and sexually battered and beat the victim. He was charged with armed burglary, sexual …
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Roderick Everett Mullins, challenges the trial court’s judgments and sentences. We find that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant and, accordingly, reverse and remand for resentencing.
The appellant was charged with, and pled guilty to, armed burglary, sexual battery, and aggravated battery on an elderly person, in violation of sections 810.02(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), 794.011, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), and 784.08, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). The record shows that the appellant cut the window screen of the victim’s residence and upon entering the residence sexually battered and beat the victim. The appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced as a habitual felony offender to two consecutive life sentences for the armed burglary and aggravated battery counts and to life probation for the sexual battery count. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We reject the appellant’s first contention that the trial court erred by sentencing him as a habitual felony offender pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), without making specific findings of fact that show an enhanced sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. The appellant pled guilty to offenses committed in 1992 and the statute as amended in 1988 no longer requires the court to make such findings. See Newman v. State, 575 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
We agree, however, with the appellant’s second contention that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences as a habitual offender. When a sentencing court enhances a sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the court may not further enhance the penalty by ordering the individual sentences to be served consecutively if the violations occurred dur ing a single criminal episode. Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). Because the facts in the instant ease clearly show that the three crimes occurred during one criminal episode, the consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed were improper. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Newman v. State, 575 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)