ANTHONY MATTHEWS, 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.
Defendant Matthews appealed the denial of his collateral attack on consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed for armed robberies arising from a single criminal episode. The court reversed and remanded, holding that under Hale v. State and State v. Callaway, consecutive sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode violate Florida law, and the state's concession of this fact eliminated the need for an evidentiary hearing.
Consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses arising from a single criminal episode violate Hale v. State and can be challenged retroactively within a two-year window established by Callaway. Because the state conceded the offenses arose from a single criminal episode, no evidentiary hearing was required, and the defendant's enhanced sentences must be ordered to run concurrently.
[1] A challenge to consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode may be retroactively applied.
[2] A challenge to consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode must be brought within a two-year window following the decision in Hale v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The state conceded that the armed robberies, which occurred without any break or deviation in time or location, arose from a single criminal episode”
Establishes that the factual predicate for the Hale violation was not disputed, eliminating the need for an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences for armed robberies that occurred without any break or deviation in time or locatio…
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
PARIENTE, Judge.
Defendant appeals the denial of his collateral attack on his consecutive habitual offender sentences relying on Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195, reh’g denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 686, 130 L.Ed.2d 617 (1994). The state conceded that the armed robberies, which occurred without any break or deviation in time or location, arose from a single criminal episode, but argued against the retroactivity of Hale. Subsequent to the entry of the trial court’s order, our supreme court decided State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995), which determined that a challenge based on Hale could be retroactively applied.
The supreme court’s holding in Callaway provides for a two-year window following the decision in Hale for criminal defendants to challenge the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses arising out of a single criminal episode. Hale sentencing errors will normally require an evidentiary hearing to determine if the offenses for which a defendant has been sentenced arose out of a single criminal episode. Thus, Callaway determined that because an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve this issue, the challenge should be dealt with under rule 3.850 which provides for an evidentiary hearing.
Defendant’s challenge is within the two-year window provided by Callaway and Hale\ however, defendant brought his challenge under rule 3.800 rather than rule 3.850. This difference would be significant if his challenge had been untimely or if an evidentiary hearing would be required. Because of the state’s concession that the two crimes arose from a single criminal episode, an evidentiary hearing is not required to determine that defendant’s sentence violates Hale. It is thus unnecessary to require that defendant refile his motion under rule 3.850. Instead, we treat this as a 3.850 appeal. See Casso v. State, 592 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case with instructions that defendant’s enhanced sentences be ordered to run concurrently.
GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnie Hugh Doctor v. State, 677 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…o. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review granted, 672 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1996); Frazier v. State, 664 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 666 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1995), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1679, 134 L.Ed.2d 781 (1996); Rayfield v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 1421, 134 L.Ed.2d 545 (1996); Jones v. State, 662 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 116 S.Ct.…
-
Milo Wilson v. State, 668 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ry pool prior to voir dire. This court found the instructions to be fundamental error, as it deprived the appellant of his right to rely on the correct standard of reasonable doubt. We have recently followed the Jones decision in Rayfield v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Rayfield, instructions similar to those in Jones were given to the jury pool. This court reversed, citing the “all-but-identical preliminary instructions on reasonable doubt” as grounds for reversal. In the case at bar, the…
-
Pierce v. State, 671 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…kly D77, — So. 2d — [1996 WL 1117] (Fla. 4th DCA January 3, 1996); Wilson v. State, 668 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Frazier v. State, 664 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, No. 86,543, 666 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dec. 19, 1995); Rayfield v. State, 664 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995); Jones v. State, 657 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA), reh’g granted, 662 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 664 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1995). Exactly fact-similar to Jones, 656 So. 2d 489, the trial ju…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Casso v. State, 592 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)