BOB MICHAEL CHAMPAGNE, 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 affirmed convictions for armed robbery but reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode should be concurrent for habitual violent felony offenders.
The court held that consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode are precluded for habitual violent felony offenders and must be imposed concurrently.
The defendant was convicted of three counts of armed robbery from a single criminal episode and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender with c…
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 defendant, Bob Michael Champagne, appeals from convictions and sentences. We affirm in part; reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.,
The jury found the defendant guilty of three counts of armed robbery. All counts arose from a single criminal episode. The trial court found the defendant to be a habitual violent felony offender and sentenced him to life in prison. The sentences for each charge were ordered to run consecutive to each other, with concurrent minimum mandatory sentences.
Based on the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), and Hill v. State, 645 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), we reverse the defendant’s sentences and remand for resentencing with directions to impose concurrent sentences.
The remaining points raised by the defendant present no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
ON MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
We grant the appellee’s motion to certify a question of great public importance. This court’s opinion that was released on February 1, 1995, is amended to 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?
Question certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Champagne, 666 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1995)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Champagne v. State, 651 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), in which the district court vacated Bob Michael Champagne’s 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…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Hill v. State, 645 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)