HORACE WILCHER, 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.
Horace Wilcher appealed his conviction as a habitual violent felony offender and his consecutive enhanced sentences. The court affirmed his habitual offender adjudication but reversed two of the three consecutive sentences, holding that three of his four crimes (burglary, kidnapping, and sexual battery) arose from a single criminal episode and therefore could not receive consecutive habitual offender enhancements.
The court affirmed the adjudication of Wilcher as a habitual violent felony offender but reversed the consecutive sentencing on the kidnapping and sexual battery convictions. Only the false imprisonment conviction, which was temporally and spatially separated from the crimes at the residence, could receive a consecutive habitual offender sentence.
[1] Consecutive habitual offender sentences are not permitted for crimes arising out of a single criminal episode.
[2] Determining whether a criminal episode is single for purposes of consecutive enhancement sentences requires consideration of factors such as the nature, time, place, and…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4), Florida Statutes, does not permit the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences for crimes arising out of a single criminal episode”
Establishes the legal rule that governs the entire analysis of whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilcher broke into his ex-girlfriend's apartment after she asked him to move out. He battered her, sexually assaulted her, and then kidnapped her by f…
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
STONE, J.
Wilcher was sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed upon conviction for the offenses of kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual battery, and burglary with a battery. Although we affirm the order adjudicating Wilcher to be a habitual violent felony offender, it was error to sentence him to two of the three consecutive enhanced sentences, as three of the four crimes grew out of a single criminal episode.
The trial transcript reflects that Wilcher and the victim had recently lived together. Several days after she asked him to move out, he broke into her apartment and attacked her. After a struggle in which he battered her, moved her about the apartment, and prevented her from escaping, he committed sexual battery. He then put the victim in her car, locked all the doors, and drove off with her as captive. When Wilcher stopped for gas, he tied the victim’s hands to the stick shift, but she managed to free herself, unlock the car, and run behind the store. She screamed for help, but Wilcher grabbed her and threw her back into the car. He subsequently made her get out of the car and pushed her into the trunk. Eventually, the victim was able to escape.
The habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4), Florida Statutes, does not permit the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences for crimes arising out of a single criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). There is, however, no bright line for determining whether a criminal episode is single for purposes of evaluating consecutive enhancement sentences. See Echelmeier v. State, 662 So. 2d 994, 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Smith v. State, 650 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the court recognized
In determining whether multiple crimes arise out of one criminal episode for purpose of consecutive sentencing, courts have generally considered factors such as the nature, time, place and number of victims.
Id. at 691.
In Garrison v. State, 654 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), where the defendant robbed a convenience store clerk, walked out of the store, then toned around, re-entered the store, and threatened to kill the clerk, the court held that the temporal break, if any, between the two crimes was too brief to support the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences. See id. Similarly, in this case, the burglary, kidnapping, and sexual battery, while occurring at various locations in and around the victim’s apartment, were part of the same criminal transaction as the temporal and spatial breaks, if any, were brief.
However, the crimes which occurred at the victim’s residence were clearly separated in time and place from the subsequent false imprisonment which occurred in the victim’s car. See Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1986); Trotter v. State, 744 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
We have considered, but distinguish, our holding in Cox v. State, 605 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), where we found consecutive habitual offender sentences for kidnapping and sexual battery improper, as there, the kidnapping, where the defendant forced a convenience store clerk out of the store and over a concrete wall, led directly to, and was part of, the same criminal episode as the sexual battery at the new location. By contrast, in this case, the kidnapping and sexual battery ended prior to the false imprisonment.
Therefore, the sentences for the kidnapping, sexual battery, and burglary, counts I, IV, and V, respectively, are reversed and remanded for re-sentencing. The false imprisonment sentence on count II, which was imposed as consecutive to the kidnapping sentence, is affirmed.
DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clevenger v. State, 967 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…to the facts of each case, we should consider the nature, time, place and number of victims involved. Id. citing Smith v. State, 650 So. 2d 689, 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Colson v. State, 678 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See also Wilcher v. State, 787 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Wallace v. State, 673 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Here, the State should have charged Clevenger within the speedy trial period for all crimes that occurred during the criminal episode, including the criminal charges involvin…
-
Durwin Torbert v. State, 832 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). While there is no bright line test for determining when multiple crimes arise from one criminal episode, courts generally consider factors such as the nature, time, place, and number of victims. See Wilcher v. State, 787 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In this case, the factual basis presented at the plea colloquy was as follows: appellant went to the victim’s home, where she informed him she wanted to break up with him; they had a verbal dispute; appellant forced the victim i…
-
Roberts v. State, 990 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ere sufficiently separated in time and space to constitute separate criminal episodes. “There is ... no bright line for determining whether a criminal episode is single for purposes of evaluating consecutive enhancement sentences.” Wilcher v. State, 787 So. 2d 150, 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “Whether the two offenses were committed during a single criminal episode is a question of fact.” Williams v. State, 804 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In resolving this question of fact, the courts “generally conside…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Murray v. State, 491 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1986)
- Smith v. State, 650 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Garrison v. State, 654 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- COX v. State, 605 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Echelmeier v. State, 662 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Ellis v. State, 744 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)