RENWICK KEEL, 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 reversed the trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.800 motion and remanded to reinstate the appellant's original concurrent 10-year habitual offender sentences, finding that interim consecutive sentences imposed after remand were illegal in light of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
A trial court's resentencing of an appellant to consecutive sentences after remand must be reversed and the original concurrent habitual offender sentences reinstated when the resentencing conflicts with the Florida Supreme Court's mandate.
[1] A trial court's resentencing imposed after remand from the Florida Supreme Court must comply with the Supreme Court's mandate and cannot impose sentences that conflict wi…
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 intelligenceIn 1990, Keel was sentenced to three concurrent 10-year sentences as a habitual felony offender. After this court reversed the habitual offender sente…
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 Rule 3.800 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his rule 3.800 motion in which he alleges that two five-year consecutive sentences imposed consecutive to a five-year sentence in yet another case, are illegal. We reverse the summary denial and remand for reimposition of appellant’s original 10-year habitual offender sentences.
In 1990, appellant was sentenced for three separate offenses to 10 years in prison for each offense as an habitual felony offender, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant challenged the habitual offender sentencing, and this court held that he could not be habitual- ized and remanded the case for resentencing. See Keel v. State, 582 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the portion of this court’s opinion reversing appellant’s habitual offender sentencing and remanded the case for further proceedings. State v. Keel, 597 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1992). However, in the interim, the trial court resentenced appellant to two consecutive five-year sentences that were to be served consecutively to a five-year sentence in another case. The appellant challenges this resentencing.
We agree that the interim sentences cannot stand in light of the supreme court’s opinion in Keel. We accordingly reverse the summary denial of appellant’s claim and remand with instructions to reinstate appellant’s original concurrent 10-year habitual offender sentences,
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Renwick Lamar Keel v. State, 582 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Renwick Lamar Keel, 597 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1992)