RICKY S. HUNNICUTT, 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.
Ricky S. Hunnicutt appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his consecutive sentences imposed as a habitual violent felony offender. The court held that habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions arising from a single criminal episode cannot be imposed consecutively, and reversed and remanded for resentencing in compliance with Hale v. State.
Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions emanating from one criminal episode may not be imposed consecutively under Hale v. State. Hunnicutt's challenge was timely because Dixon v. State recognized that Hale challenges could be raised within two years of the Callaway mandate establishing retroactive application, and Hunnicutt complied with this deadline.
[1] Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions arising from a single criminal episode may not be imposed consecutively.
[2] A challenge to habitual offender sentences based on the rule that they may not be imposed consecutively for offenses arising from a single criminal episode is timely if m…
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“Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions emanating from one criminal episode may not be imposed consecutively.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that consecutive habitual offender sentences are prohibited when sentences stem from a single criminal episode
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Hunnicutt was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with assault, aggravated assault, and three counts of sexual battery from one criminal epis…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Conviction Relief Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Ricky S. Hunnicutt appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We conclude that only one of his numerous contentions has merit and affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order without discussion.
In 1991 Mr. Hunnicutt was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling with assault, aggravated assault, and three counts of sexual battery during one criminal episode. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender with consecutive minimum mandatory terms for each count. While his case was on appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held in Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992), that the minimum mandatory provisions of multiple habitual violent offender sentences may not be imposed consecutively when the sentences arise from one criminal episode. Accordingly, this court reversed that aspect of Mr. Hunnicutt’s sentences and remanded his case with instructions to the trial court to impose the minimum mandatory terms concurrently. See Hunnicutt v. State, 622 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Mr. Hunnicutt now argues that the habitual violent offender sentences themselves may not also be imposed consecutively. We agree.
Habitual offender sentences for multiple convictions emanating from one criminal episode may not be imposed consecutively. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). The Hale holding was given retroactive application by State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995). Mr. Hunnicutt’s ability to seek relief by a timely filed motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was recognized in Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999). Dixon held that a Hale challenge would be timely if it was made within two years of the Callaway mandate. Mr. Hunnicutt did so and, thus, his challenge is timely filed.
We have examined the special provisions of Mr. Hunnicutt’s amended sentencing orders imposed on remand from his prior appeal. The amended orders state that the habitual violent offender sentences imposed for counts one, two, four, five, and six shall run consecutively. This sentencing scheme violates Hale. Accordingly, we reverse the sentences and remand for re-sentencing in conformity with Hale.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999)
- Hunnicutt v. State, 622 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)