BOBBY TAYLOR, 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.
Trial court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive life sentences for eight armed robberies occurring in a single criminal episode; consecutive sentencing is prohibited when offenses arise from the same criminal episode.
When multiple offenses occur during a single criminal episode, a trial court may not impose consecutive sentences even after enhancing sentences under the habitual offender statute.
[1] When multiple offenses occur during a single criminal episode, consecutive sentences may not be imposed even when sentences are enhanced under the habitual offender statu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 offenses occur in one criminal episode, a trial court may not enhance the sentences pursuant to the habitual offender statute and then increase the total penalty by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.”
Court explaining the legal rule prohibiting consecutive sentences for crimes in a single criminal episode.
Appellant was convicted of eight counts of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to seven consecutive life sentences followed by a consec…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his sentence as a habitual offender to seven consecutive life sentences followed by a consecutive sentence of life probation for eight counts of armed robbery. We agree that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive terms since all of the robberies occurred during the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Koon v. State, 640 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). When offenses occur in one criminal episode, a trial court may not enhance the sentences pursuant to the habitual offender statute and then increase the total penalty by ordering that the sentences run consecutively. This also applies to a sentence of imprisonment on one count, followed by a term of probation on another count arising from the same incident. Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentences on all eight counts and remand to the trial court to resentence him to concurrent sentences. Since appellant cannot serve a probationary term while incarcerated, if the trial court decides to resentence appellant on Count VIII to a sentence of imprisonment, it must run concurrently with his other sentences.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benjamin v. State, 667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ecutive habitual offender sentences applies to a sentence of imprisonment on one count, foEowed by a term of probation on another count arising from a single criminal episode. See Jackson v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Taylor v. State, 658 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As a probationary sentence cannot be imposed concurrently with a prison term, upon resentencing, if the court decides to impose a term of incarceration for the offense of poss…
-
Canavan v. State, 842 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…because the offenses arose from a single criminal episode. See also Whitfield v. State, 804 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 809 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Benjamin v. State, 667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Taylor v. State, 658 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But see Davis v. State, 710 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (where defendant was found to be a habitual offender only as to count one, consecutive probation term on count two was not erroneous although the offenses arose from a s…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Solomon Timothy Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Koon v. State, 640 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)