LENARD PHILMORE, 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.
Affirmed convictions for attempted first-degree murder and burglary with a firearm, but remanded for correction of sentences because consecutive sentences were improper after enhancement under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.
Once sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, they must run concurrently rather than consecutively.
[1] When sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, the sentences must run concurre…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLenard Philmore was convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and burglary of an occupied structure with a firearm. He was sentenced t…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Lenard Philmore, appeals from his convictions and sentences for attempted first degree murder with a firearm and burglary of an occupied structure with a firearm. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Philmore’s motion to suppress and affirm his sentences under section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), which this court has found to be constitutional. See Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), review granted, No. SC96713, 761 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Apr.12, 2000); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999).
On his two convictions Philmore was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Act to two life terms to run consecutively. Philmore asserts and the state concedes that the consecutive sentences were error. In Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), the supreme court held that once the sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced, then the total penalty may not be further increased by ordering that they run consecutively. As Phil-more’s sentence was enhanced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, his sentences should run concurrently. We remand to the trial court to correct the sentence.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMAND FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Almendares v. State, 916 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…nt statutes. In those cases sentences imposed under a sentencing enhancement statute may not run consecutively if the offenses occurred during a single criminal episode. See Murray v. State, 890 So. 2d 451, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This exception is not applicable to the present case as Almendares was not sentenced pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute. See Rodriguez v. State, 883 So. 2d 908, 910 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“... there is nothing…
-
Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…the habitual felony offender statutes, - the total penalty could not be further increased by imposing consecutive sentences. The holding in Hale appears applicable to sentences enhanced through the prison releasee reoffender act. Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McIntyre v. State, 757 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 767 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2000).…
-
Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…and Fifth Districts have held that Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993), precludes consecutive prison releas-ee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode. Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This court has implicitly concluded that a defendant cannot be sentenced to consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode. See Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087, 1088 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 20…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Pollock v. Couffer, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Barfield v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)