WILLIE KINSEY, 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.
Willie Kinsey appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and armed burglary. The court found merit only in his challenge to consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed for crimes committed during a single criminal episode, holding that such sentences must run concurrently rather than consecutively.
A trial court may not order habitual offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode to run consecutively; all terms must run concurrently.
[1] Habitual offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode cannot be ordered to run consecutively.
[2] A court may address serious, patent sentencing errors even if not raised by a motion in the trial court, once jurisdiction is acquired based on preserved error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court may not order habitual offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode to run consecutively.”
Establishes the core legal principle that habitual offender sentences must run concurrently when crimes are committed as part of a single criminal episode.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKinsey and a codefendant kidnapped two victims at gunpoint, drove them to an orange grove, and demanded money. When the victims had no money, the defe…
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 Armed Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Willie Kinsey appeals his judgments and sentences of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of armed kidnapping, and one count of armed burglary. He raises several issues in this appeal, but we find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences.1 We remand for correction of Kinsey’s sentences.
The State filed an information charging Kinsey as follows:
Count I: armed robbery of Jerry Sweat’s vehicle and other personal property.
Count II: armed robbery of James Steed-ley’s shoes.
Count III: armed burglary of Sweat’s vehicle.
Count IV: armed kidnapping of Steedley.
Count V: armed kidnapping of Sweat.
The facts adduced at trial revealed that Kinsey and a eodefendant kidnapped James Steedley and Jerry Sweat at gunpoint by driving them in Sweat’s vehicle to an orange grove. Upon arrival at the grove, the victims were removed from the car and told to lie face down on the ground. The defendants demanded that the victims give them money. Apparently, neither victim had money with him. However, Steedley offered his new shoes which, along with several other items belonging to Sweat, were taken by the defendants.
These facts reveal that all of the offenses of which Kinsey was convicted were part of a single criminal episode as there was no temporal break between the offenses and the victims were not separate. A trial court may not order habitual offender sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode to run consecutively. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993).
Accordingly, we remand this case with directions that Kinsey’s sentences be amended to reflect that all terms of imprisonment be served concurrently. Kinsey need not be present. See Sinks v. State, 661 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1995).
Remanded for correction of sentences.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., Concur. . Although Kinsey did not raise this sentencing issue by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in the trial court, this court will address serious, patent sentencing errors when it has acquired jurisdiction based on preserved error. See Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Govea v. State, 785 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…a Heggs issue. The court determined that the Heggs issue was meritless, but sua sponte noted that the sentences for two of the four counts exceeded the statutory maximum, and accordingly, it remanded to correct those sentences. Cf. Kinsey v. State, 728 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (although sentencing error was not preserved, court has jurisdiction based on preserved error and will also address serious, patent sentencing errors). The Florida Supreme Court explained in In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (F…
-
Edwards v. State, 59 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…5th DCA 2001) (on postconviction appeal, appellate court may order correction of patent sentencing errors not raised in postconviction motion or in order on appeal) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 766 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) and Kinsey v. State, 728 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). In the proceedings below, the trial court initially sentenced Edwards to eight years in prison followed by five years of probation on a charge of robbery, a second degree felony with a fifteen-year maximum penalty. Edwards has…
-
Fedell Tobias Nichols v. State, 834 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…offender sentences to run consecutively pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, remand for correction of the error and imposition of concurrent sentences. Appellant need not be present for resentenc-ing. Kinsey v. State, 728 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Sinks v. State, 661 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1995)). WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Sinks v. State, 661 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1995)