JOHNNY JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-09-04
No. 96-959
MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
679 So. 2d 834 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion as successive, as it was timely filed under a supreme court ruling.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant alleged consecutive habitual offender sentences arose from a single criminal episode. He previously filed a motion under Rule 3.800, which w…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant alleges that his consecutive habitual offender sentences arose from a single criminal episode and that the trial court erred in denying relief. We reverse.

Appellant previously filed a motion pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800 asserting the above-stated claim. This court affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief but cited cases that make clear that denial of relief was without prejudice to appellant’s filing a timely motion pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Jackson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

The supreme court ruled that a trial court is not authorized under the habitual offender statute to impose consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses arising out of a single criminal episode and opened a two-year window during which criminal defendants could challenge such sentences in a motion filed pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995).

Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s timely filed 3.850 motion as successive. The cause is remanded to the trial court to determine whether appellant’s consecutive habitual offender sentences arose from a single criminal episode.

MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw