NORMAN GENE COLLINS, 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.
Collins appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief and amended motion challenging his sentences. The court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode in violation of Hale v. State, and that the record did not conclusively refute Collins' ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The court reversed the denial of postconviction relief because the record did not conclusively refute Collins' ineffective assistance claims and remanded for the state to answer and determination of whether an evidentiary hearing is needed. The court also reversed the sentencing, holding that consecutive habitual offender sentences are impermissible for offenses arising from a single criminal episode under Hale v. State, and remanded for resentencing with concurrent sentences.
[1] A court must reverse and remand for further proceedings when the records attached to an order denying postconviction relief do not refute the motion's claims.
[2] Consecutive habitual offender sentences are impermissible for offenses committed during a single criminal episode.
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“Because consecutive habitual offender sentences were improperly imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode, we also reverse and remand for resentencing.”
Establishes the primary holding that consecutive habitual offender sentences violate Hale v. State when offenses arise from a single criminal episode.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollins was convicted by jury of burglary, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools—all third-degree felonies arising from a single criminal epis…
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 Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Norman Gene Collins timely appeals the circuit court’s orders denying his motion for postconvietion relief and an amended motion in which Collins presented a claim of improper sentences. Because the records attached to the order denying postconvietion relief do not refute the motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Because consecutive habitual offender sentences were improperly imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode, we also reverse and remand for resentencing.
Following a jury trial, Collins was convicted of burglary, grand theft and possession of burglary tools, all third-degree felonies. All three counts occurred during one criminal episode. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms of ten years’ imprisonment on each charge.
In the motion for postconvietion relief, Collins alleged that his trial attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel regarding certain evidentiary matters. From the limited record before this court, it appears that these matters may have contributed to Collins’ convictions. The portions of the record attached to the order do not refute these claims. Thus, we reverse the order denying Collins’ original motion.
• In the amendment to his motion, Collins argued that his three consecutive habitual offender sentences were impermissible under the rule announced in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993) (holding there is no statutory authority for consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses committed during a single criminal episode). Although the written order appears to grant Collins’ motion, the new sentencing documents inexplicably reflect that the sentences are still consecutive. Additionally, the documents have erroneously been amended to add three concurrent ten-year minimum mandatory sentences.
Accordingly, we reverse the orders denying Collins’ motion for postconvietion relief and his amendment to that motion and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. As to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the files and records conclusively show that Collins is entitled to no relief, the court on remand shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receipt of the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If Collins’ motion for postconvietion relief is again denied, the trial court shall vacate the amended sentences and impose concurrent sentences in accordance with Hale.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. State, 671 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…Appellant must seek review of any subsequent order of the trial court within thirty days. Reversed and remanded. BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., dissents. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). . Collins v. State, 652 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). . Collins’ co-defendant pleaded guilty to the crime and received a sentence of ten years’ incarceration. . Q: (By Mr. Todd) Page 12, line 12 — or line 10 question, “Okay. All right. Was Miranda read to both of them at the scene…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)