JONATHAN SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the habitual offender statute does not permit consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode after enhancement.
The defendant was found guilty of multiple crimes from a single episode, with one exception. The trial court sentenced him as an habitual violent felo…
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
PER CURIAM.
The jury found the defendant, Jonathan Simmons, guilty of numerous crimes. All counts arose from a single criminal episode, except for Count XII. The trial court sentenced the defendant as an habitual violent felony offender and ordered that the sentences run consecutively.
In Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 115 S.Ct. 278,130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), the court held:
[w]e find nothing in the language of the habitual offender statute which suggests that the legislature also intended that, once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.
Therefore, in the instant case, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing with directions to impose concurrent sentences, except as to Count XII. Further, we also certify the same question certified in Hill v. State, 645 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), as being one of great public importance:
Whether Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, [— U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994)], precludes under all circumstances the imposition of consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode for habitual felony or habitual violent felony offenders?
The remaining points raised by the defendant lack merit. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentences are remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. State, 666 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1995)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Simmons v. State, 650 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), in which the district court vacated Jonathan Simmons’ sentence and certified the following question as being one of great public importance: Whether Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert denied, [— U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 27…
-
Parker v. State, 651 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…an individual to consecutive enhanced habitual offender sentences where the crimes arose from the same criminal incident. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Simmons v. State, 650 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Hill v. State, 645 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand with instructions to the trial court to impose concurrent sentences. Finally, we certify the same question framed in Hill and…
-
Bonard v. State, 666 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…te v. Hill, 660 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1995), approving 645 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Parker, 660 So. 2d 1393 (Fla.1995), approving 651 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); and Simmons v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S509 (Fla. Oct. 5, 1995), approving 650 So. 2d 126 (Fla.1995). Affirmed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Hill v. State, 645 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)