ERNEST R. JOE, JR., 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.
Court affirmed convictions but reversed sentencing, holding that habitual violent felony offender sentences from a single criminal episode must run concurrently and that life felony offenses cannot include points for habitual offender convictions on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
Habitual violent felony offender sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently, and life felony offenses cannot include points for habitual offender convictions on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
[1] Habitual violent felony offender sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently rather than consecutively.
[2] Life felony offenses are not eligible for habitual offender sentences and cannot include points for habitual offender convictions on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErnest R. Joe, Jr. was convicted of numerous offenses arising from a home invasion in August 1992. The trial court imposed habitual violent felony off…
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 Life Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ernest R. Joe, Jr., appeals his numerous convictions and sentences arising out of a home invasion in August 1992. We affirm Mr. Joe’s convictions, but reverse and remand for resentencing.
The trial court imposed habitual violent felony offender sentences for some of Mr. Joe’s convictions, but erroneously ordered those sentences to run consecutively. Habitual violent felony offender sentences arising from a single criminal episode must run concurrently. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 180 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). Next, the trial court correctly determined that the two life felony offenses were not eligible for habitual offender sentences. Dixon v. State, 659 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The sentencing guidelines scoresheet prepared for Mr. Joe’s two life felonies included points for all of the convictions for which he received habitual violent offender sentences. Those offenses cannot be included on this scoresheet. Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Thus, on remand, the trial court must resentence Mr. Joe’s two life felony offenses using a correct scoresheet.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing with directions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toro v. State, 691 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…s are life felonies not subject to habitualization. We agree that the four sexual battery offenses are life felonies and cannot be enhanced under the applicable habitual offender statute. See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1992); Joe v. State, 668 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). However, the kidnapping offense is a first degree felony, and the punishment for a first degree felony can be enhanced under the habitual offender statute. Blotz v. State, 640 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Toro argues the kid…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Flowers v. State, 659 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Dixon v. State, 659 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)