RUBEN SERRANO, 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.
Court reversed a trial court's imposition of consecutive habitual violent offender sentences, holding that only concurrent sentences were permissible for the two aggravated battery convictions.
Only concurrent sentences, not consecutive sentences, are permissible when imposing habitual violent offender enhancements on multiple counts of aggravated battery.
[1] Consecutive habitual violent offender sentences are impermissible; only concurrent sentences may be imposed on multiple counts of aggravated battery when the defendant is…
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 intelligenceRuben Serrano was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery and declared a habitual violent felony offender under Florida law. The trial court imp…
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 Sentencing Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Ruben Serrano from a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a). We conclude, eon-trary to the defendant’s contention, that a sufficient predicate was laid by the state for the trial court to declare the defendant a habitual violent felony offender under Section 775.084(l)(b), (4)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). Upon the state’s confession of error, however, we conclude that it was illegal for the trial court to impose two consecutive habitual violent offender sentences of thirty years each on the two counts of aggravated battery for which the defendant was convicted, as only concurrent sentences were permissible in this case. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995); Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994).
The trial court order denying the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the subject motion and thereafter impose the sentences originally entered in all respects, except that the sentences imposed on the defendant’s two convictions shall run concurrently, rather than consecutively.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…her. Therefore, the order denying Martin Memorial’s motion to dismiss is a departure from the essential requirements of the law from which Martin Memorial will suffer irreparable harm which could not be cured on plenary appeal. Escobar v. Olortegui, 662 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Accordingly, the petition is granted and the order quashed. The second issue before us is whether, under section 766.204(2), Ms. Herber is excused from providing a corroborating affidavit because Martin Memorial failed to provi…
-
Medina v. The Pub. Health Tr., 743 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ing the copies. As the hospital far exceeded the section 766.204(1) ten-day deadline in providing Schlesinger with the requested records, under section 766.204(2) the hospital waived the corroborating affidavit requirement. See Escobar v. Olortegui, 662 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Otto v. Rodriguez, 710 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA)(failure to comply with records request waives corroborating opinion requirement), review denied, 718 So. 2d 170 (Fla.1998); Watson v. Beckman, 695 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1…
-
Jefferson v. State, 677 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…1 Fla. L. Weekly D1398, — So. 2d -[1996 WL 313114] (Fla.2d DCA June 12, 1996); Tipper v. State, 674 So. 2d 934 (Fla.3d DCA 1996); Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla.4th DCA 1996); Matthews v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla.4th DCA 1995); Serrano v. State, 662 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.3d DCA 1995); Saunders v. State, 661 So. 2d 134 (Fla.4th DCA 1995); Fountain v. State, 660 So. 2d 376 (Fla.4th DCA 1995). In addition, I am unable to accept the majority’s construction of the Davis language for an even more basic reason. I fin…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)