EDDIE MACK LOCK, 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.
Eddie Lock appealed the denial of his motions for postconviction relief, challenging consecutive habitual sentences imposed for two robberies of different victims at the same location during one criminal episode. The court affirmed the denial of his Rule 3.800 motion but reversed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion, finding that under Hale v. State, consecutive sentences were improper and remanding for resentencing to concurrent terms.
The court held that consecutive sentences were improper under Hale. Time and place are critical elements in determining whether consecutive sentences are appropriate, and absent record attachments showing facts that separate the crimes in terms of time or location beyond proximity, the trial court must grant the motion and resentence Lock to concurrent terms.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 is subject to appellate review.
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is subject to appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Violations predating Hale are subject to collateral attack, State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995), and Lock's motion is timely.”
Establishes that Lock's postconviction motion challenging sentences imposed before Hale was properly timely and subject to collateral attack.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLock entered a store and robbed a patron with a shotgun, then directed the victim elsewhere and turned the weapon on the store clerk to rob her as wel…
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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
[*872] PER CURIAM.
Eddie Lock challenges the trial court’s summary denial of separate motions filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850. We affirm the denial of his rule 3.800 motion, and reverse the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
The trial court appended to its order excerpts of depositions of the victims which show that Lock entered a store, robbed a patron with a shotgun, directed him elsewhere, and then turned the weapon on the store clerk and robbed her. The record fails to indicate whether the assailant moved at all, except to turn his shotgun and his attention toward the second victim. The court denied appellant’s claim that consecutive habitual sentences (growing out of one criminal episode, as proscribed by Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993)) were illegally imposed. Violations predating Hale are subject to collateral attack, State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995), and Lock’s motion is timely. Lock v. State, 668 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
In its detailed order denying the motion the court attempts to distinguish eases which seem to support Lock’s position, asserting that distinct threats were issued to each of the victims. The cases, however, do not support the court’s analysis. Robberies of multiple victims at the same location have historically been treated as classic examples of cases deserving of the advantages afforded by Hale. See Wallace v. State, 673 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Koon v. State, 640 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 95 (Fla.2d DCA 1994).
Smith is especially instructive. There the defendant robbed three people in the back of a retail establishment and then forced one of them, the manager, to the front of the store, where he was robbed of the contents of the cash register. Concurrent sentences were mandated for the first robberies, and a consecutive sentence was approved for the robbery occurring in the front of the store. Time and place are critical elements in a Hale analysis of the propriety of consecutive sentences. In the ease at bar, the court found these to be separate and distinct crimes, “sharing in common only proximities of time and location.”
The exception to a time and location analysis, exemplified in the situation in which the defendant discharges a firearm multiple times at multiple victims, is not applicable in the instant matter. Lifted v. State, 643 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Unless record attachments shed additional facts that separate these crimes in terms of time or location to a greater extent than we are able to discern from the record before us, the court must grant the motion and resen-tence Lock to concurrent terms for these two robberies.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lock v. State, 732 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…luded that the crimes were not committed in the course of a single episode. We reversed that decision because the attachments to the order did not support the trial court’s decision that the offenses constituted separate episodes. See Lock v. State, 687 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). On the 1997 remand, the trial court entered two concurrent life sentences as a habitual offender. There appear to be two problems with these sentences. First, the sentences are habitual offender sentences and not habitual violen…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Owens v. Leisure Mgmt. Miami, Inc., 632 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lifred v. State, 643 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Lock v. State, 668 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Koon v. State, 640 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Wallace v. State, 673 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)