CARL GEORGE LAVENTURE, 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.
Carl George Laventure appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief challenging his sentencing. The court reverses and remands, holding that the trial court lacked statutory authority under Hale v. State to impose consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple counts arising from a single criminal episode, and instructing the court to resentence Laventure in compliance with Hale or allow him to withdraw his plea.
The court held that habitual felony offender sentences can be imposed to run consecutively only for separate, distinct crimes that do not occur in the course of a single criminal episode. Under Hale v. State, consecutive habitual offender sentences are prohibited when multiple counts involve a single criminal episode; such sentences must run concurrently. Therefore, the trial court lacked statutory authority for the imposed sentencing structure.
[1] Habitual felony offender sentences may only be imposed consecutively for separate, distinct crimes that do not occur within a single criminal episode.
[2] When multiple counts arise from a single criminal episode, habitual offender sentences must be imposed concurrently.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Habitual felony offender sentences can be imposed to run consecutively only for separate, distinct crimes that do not occur in the course of a single criminal episode.”
Establishes the core legal rule from Hale v. State that governs when consecutive habitual offender sentences are permissible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaventure was charged in multiple cases with attempted kidnapping, witness tampering, solicitation to commit murder, firearm possession by a convicted…
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
PER CURIAM.
Carl George Laventure appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Laventure’s motion sets forth several grounds for relief, only one of which merits discussion. We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to resentence Laventure in a manner which achieves the intent of the plea agreement or allow him to withdraw his plea. Laventure challenges his consecutive violent habitual offender sentences for possession of contraband in jail in case number 90-3299, which were part of a multi-ease plea agreement. It appears from our limited record that Laventure was charged in several cases with two counts of attempted kidnapping, witness tampering, solicitation to commit murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, two counts of criminal mischief and three counts of possession of contraband in jail. The specifically bargained for terms of the plea agreement were a thirty-year violent habitual felony offender sentence with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory and, at the trial court’s discretion, probation. In exchange, the State would file a nolle prosequi of the witness tampering and solicitation charges.
The court sentenced Laventure as a violent habitual felony offender, to thirty years’ incarceration with a ten-year minimum mandatory on the attempted kidnapping charge, three consecutive five-year prison sentences, with five-year minimum mandatories, for the contraband charges, to be served consecutively to each other, but concurrent with the kidnapping charge. The stacking of the contraband charges was intended to provide the mandatory fifteen-year component of the negotiated plea.
Laventure claims the court lacked statutory authority to impose consecutive habitual offender sentences pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). The State’s response conceded the sentencing error. However, the trial court found that the plea was a bargained for quid pro quo for the State filing a nolle prosequi of the witness tampering and solicitation charges in case number 90-0190, and therefore declined to change the sentencing structure.
Habitual felony offender sentences can be imposed to run consecutively only for separate, distinct crimes that do not occur in the course of a single criminal episode. Hale stands for the proposition that when there are multiple counts involved in a single criminal episode, the habitual offender sentences must be made to run concurrently. See State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995).
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to resentence Laventure in a manner which effectuates the intent of the plea agreement and complies with Hale, or if it cannot do so, to allow him to withdraw his plea. Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Erickson v. State, 687 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walters v. State, 812 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…e charges and any others that were resolved through the plea agreement. See Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla.2001); St Lawrence v. State, 785 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Govea v. State, 785 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Laventure v. State, 695 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing. HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . The statute provides for a penalty of “imprisonment for life or for a term of years not less than 30 for a life felony committed prior to October 1…
-
Shepherd v. State, 713 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…table for relief under rule 3.800(a). Rule 3.850, the only vehicle authorized in Callaway I for attacking sentences contravening Hale, may be utilized to assail such sentences irrespective of the ret-roactivity issues. See, e.g., Laventure v. State, 695 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court’s denial of this claim imposes upon Shepherd a window approved by the supreme court to save those who procedurally had no other means of pursuing relief from a sentencing scheme which had been deemed unconstituti…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Snead v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Blanc v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Carlton Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Erickson v. State, 687 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)