LEONARD JAMES PHILMORE, A/K/A 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.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded for modification of consecutive sentences to concurrent sentences.
Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, and burglary while armed. He received consecutive life sentences.…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Philmore’s conviction on charges of attempted first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, and burglary of an occupied structure while armed with a firearm. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for these crimes.
We reject Philmore’s challenges to the constitutionality of the prison releasee reoffender act but, as in Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(9), FLORIDA STATUTES (1999), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
We agree, however, with Philmore’s contention that his consecutive sentences run afoul of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), which prohibits imposition of consecutive enhancement sentences for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. We, therefore, reverse and remand Phil-more’s sentences for modification to concurrent life sentences on all counts, consistent with this opinion.
STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…upreme court held that it is improper to impose consecutive habitual offender sentences for crimes arising out of the same criminal episode. The rationale of Hale applies equally to consecutive sentences imposed under the Act. See Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Jones v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2497, - So. 2d -, 2000 WL 1532901 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.18, 2000) (stating that when each count involves separate victims and a different act, “we see no lawful basis to prohibit consecutiv…
-
Durwin Torbert v. State, 832 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…e. See 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)(prohibiting imposition of consecutive enhancement sentences for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(applying Hale to consecutive sentences imposed under the PRR Act). See also Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 804 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 200…
-
Deron Delarease Green v. State, 845 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…d Hale and held that consecutive prison releasee reof-fender sentences that arose from a single criminal episode were illegal. Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In the instant case, the defendant’s convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the trial court was not authorized to impose the enhanced consecutive minimum mandatory sent…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)