CURTIS LEE MARTIN, 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.
Curtis Lee Martin appealed consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed across three cases. The court reversed the consecutive sentences in case 92-607, holding that when multiple crimes from a single criminal episode are enhanced as habitual offender violations, they cannot be further enhanced by ordering consecutive service.
The court held that when a defendant is sentenced for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode and those sentences are enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the trial court cannot further enhance the penalty by ordering the sentences to be served consecutively.
[1] Consecutive habitual offender sentences may not be imposed for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode.
[2] A written judgment must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of a sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant is sentenced for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode and those sentences are enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the trial court may not further enhance the penalty by ordering the individual sentences to be served consecutively.”
Establishes the core legal principle that consecutive enhancement of habitual offender sentences within a single criminal episode is impermissible
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin pleaded nolo contendere to burglary and grand theft in case 92-607, and to multiple charges in cases 92-659 and 92-750. The trial court adjudic…
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 Clerical Error In Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Curtis Lee Martin, challenges the habitual offender sentences imposed upon him in circuit court case number 92-607. We reverse the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences in that case.
The appellant pled nolo contendere to burglary and grand theft in circuit court case number 92-607. He also pled nolo contende-re to multiple charges in circuit court case number 92-659 and circuit court case number 92-750. The court adjudicated the appellant guilty of all the charges and sentenced him as a habitual offender. In circuit court case number 92-607, the trial court imposed two ten year prison terms and ordered that they be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the thirty year prison term imposed in circuit court ease number 92-750. In circuit court case number 92-659, the trial court orally imposed three concurrent ten year prison terms and ordered that they be served concurrently to the sentences in the other two circuit court cases. This timely appeal from the three above-mentioned circuit court cases followed.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in circuit court case number 92-607 by sentencing him to consecutive habitual offender sentences in connection with the same episode. We agree. When a defendant is sentenced for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode and those sentences are enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the trial court may not further enhance the penalty by ordering the individual sentences to be served consecutively. Cain v. State, 642 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the record in case number 92-607 shows that the crimes of burglary and grand theft occurred during one criminal episode and were enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the trial court erred in ordering that the sentences be served consecutively.
The appellant also contends that a clerical error exists on the written judgment and sentence in circuit court case number 92-607. The parties agree that the judgment incorrectly characterizes the burglary as an armed burglary. Therefore, on remand, the word “armed” should be stricken.
We also note that a clerical error appears on the written judgment and sentence in circuit court case number 92-659. The written judgment indicates that the sentences in circuit court case number 92-659 were to be served consecutively to the sentence in circuit court ease number 92-750. However, the trial court at the sentencing hearing orally pronounced that the sentences in circuit court case number 92-659 were to be served concurrently to any other sentence. Therefore, the written judgment in circuit court case number 92-659 must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 664 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ally imposed public defender’s fees in the amount of $600. The written judgment and sentence do not, however, reflect these fees. We, therefore, remand for the written judgment and sentence to be conformed to the oral pronouncement. Martin v. State, 657 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Also, on remand the costs that were stricken may be reimposed upon compliance with Reyes. Affirmed; costs stricken and remanded. SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 600 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Cain v. State, 642 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)