BRAULIO ERNESTO AMORES, 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.
The court held that a defendant's challenge to a peremptory strike is not preserved if the jury is accepted without reservation. It also held that sentences enhanced by habitual offender statutes cannot be ordered to run consecutively.
The defendant was convicted of multiple crimes. He appealed, claiming the trial court erred in disallowing a peremptory challenge and in ordering sent…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Braulio Ernesto Amores appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary, armed kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of armed sexual battery. We affirm the convictions but remand for correction of the sentences ordered.
Amores claims the lower court erred when it required him, under State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), to provide his reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge and subsequently disallowed that challenge. However, because “he affirmatively accepted the jury immediately prior to its being sworn without reservation of his earlier-made objection,” the issue has not been preserved for review. Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); Portela v. State, 661 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cruz v. State, 660 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
We agree however, and the state concedes, that error occurred with respect to the defendant’s sentences. “[O]nce the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been en hanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should [not] then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.” Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993); see Cruz, 660 So. 2d at 793. Because Amores’ two armed robbery convictions arose out of a single criminal episode, that portion of the trial court’s order which made the habitual offender sentences for each armed robbery run consecutively was error. On remand, the order should be corrected so that the armed robbery sentences run concurrently.
Affirmed in part, and remanded for correction of the error outlined herein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- Portela v. State, 661 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Cruz v. State, 660 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)