ERIC BRIAN HOLSWORTH, 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.
Court reversed a sentence imposing consecutive habitual offender enhancements for crimes committed during a single criminal episode, holding that once sentences are enhanced through habitual offender statutes, they should run concurrently rather than consecutively.
Once sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through habitual offender statutes, those enhanced sentences must run concurrently rather than consecutively.
[1] Habitual offender sentence enhancements for crimes committed during a single criminal episode must run concurrently rather than consecutively.
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 intelligence“We find nothing in the language of the habitual offender statute which suggests that ... once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.”
Court's rationale for reversing consecutive sentencing of habitual offender enhancements
Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender on armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions, with those sentences ordered to run co…
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 appeals from an order entered in the circuit court summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender on his armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions. These sentences were to be served consecutive to each other and consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder.
We reverse on the authority of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993) (“We find nothing in the language of the habitual offender statute which suggests that ... once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the total penalty should then be further increased by ordering that the sentences run consecutively.”). See State v. Ames, 467 So. 2d 994, 995-96 (Fla.1985) (involving analysis of whether burglary was “separate and distinct” from sexual battery for the purpose of consecutive imposition of mandatory minimum sentences). We remand the case with directions that the life sentences on the armed burglary and attempted first degree murder convictions shall run concurrently.
POLEN, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- THE Florida BAR v. Napier, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Ames, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985)