MICHAEL SCOTT JORDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Single Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court sentenced the defendant as a habitual felony offender to thirty years in prison for burglary of a dwelling and to ten years each on four counts of grand theft. The sentences imposed on the grand theft charges are concurrent with each other but consecutive to the burglary sentence. All of the charges arose out of the same criminal episode.
We affirm the convictions, but pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), we reverse the sentences and remand the case to the trial court. As the court explained in Hale, the habitual felony offender statute does not authorize consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for crimes arising out of a single criminal episode. Although the defendant did not object at the time of sentencing or subsequently file a rule 3.800(b) motion in the trial court, we may review his sentence on direct appeal because it is “illegal”. See Lipford v. State, 736 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
JOANOS, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shalone Lewis v. State, 141 So. 3d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…victions that arose from a single criminal episode. These sentences are illegal and can be remedied on plenary appeal, regardless of the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue. Lipford v. State, 736 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Jordan v. State, 754 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Because this error is evident on the face of this record, we remand the case for the trial court to impose concurrent sentences. The defendant need not be present. Affirmed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Lipford v. State, 736 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)