LORENZO SMITH, 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.
Lorenzo Smith appeals his resentencing following reversal of his attempted second degree murder conviction. The court reverses sentences on two counts and remands for correction because consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences imposed on counts arising from a single criminal episode violate the Hale doctrine established in prior Florida Supreme Court precedent.
Consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode are precluded under the Hale doctrine. Smith's sentences on counts III and IV must be reversed and amended to run concurrently with his life sentence on count II.
[1] Consecutive sentences enhanced through the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act are precluded when the crimes arise from a single criminal episode.
[2] A prior appellate opinion's statement regarding the inapplicability of consecutive sentences for enhanced offenses, even if in a footnote, can establish a controlling leg…
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“it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive terms on the sentences that were enhanced through the prison releasee reoffender act”
Establishes the legal principle that consecutive sentences cannot be imposed on prison releasee reoffender-enhanced sentences 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 intelligenceSmith was originally convicted of attempted second degree murder, burglary of a structure while armed, robbery with a firearm, and false imprisonment.…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Lorenzo Smith appeals the sentences imposed at resentencing following his original appeal. Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (Smith I). Smith was originally found guilty of attempted second degree murder (count I); burglary of a structure while armed (count II); robbery with a firearm (count III); and false imprisonment (count IV). Smith was sentenced to 30 years in prison on count I; life on counts II and III; and 10 years on count IV. Each sentence was consecutive to the others and Smith was classified a prison releasee offender on counts I, II and III. In Smith I, we reversed Smith’s conviction for attempted second degree murder and remanded the matter to the trial court.
On remand, the State dismissed the attempted second degree murder charge and asked the court to reimpose the same sentences it had originally imposed on the remaining counts. Defense counsel objected to the imposition of consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences and noted that in our original opinion we said:
Smith is also correct that it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive terms on the sentences that were enhanced through the prison releasee reoffender act. In Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), the Supreme Court held that once a defendant’s sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single incident were enhanced through the habitual felony offender statutes, the total penalty could not be further increased by imposing consecutive sentences. The holding in Hale appears applicable to sentences enhanced through the prison releasee reoffender act. Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McIntyre v. State, 757 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 767 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2000).
Smith, 773 So. 2d at 1280, n. 2.
Despite this statement in Smith I, at the State’s urging, the court again imposed the same consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences.1 As we said in Smith I, the holding in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993) precludes consecutive prison re-leasee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode. Accordingly, we reverse Smith’s sentences on counts III and IV with directions that the trial .court amend those sentences so that they run concurrently with Smith’s life sentence in count II. Because this is a purely ministerial act, Smith need not be present. See Suggs v. State, 681 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Windisch v. State, 709 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.
THOMPSON, C.J. and PALMER, J„ concur. . At resentencing the State argued that because the statement quoted above was contained in a footnote, it was dictum and not an essential holding of the case. That argument is not only incorrect but ignores the clear holdings of Philmore and McIntyre.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…they were part of a single criminal episode. The Fourth and Fifth Districts have held that Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993), precludes consecutive prison releas-ee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode. Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This court has implicitly concluded that a defendant cannot be sentenced to consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode. See Spiv…
-
Robinson v. State, 829 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ct Courts of Appeal both apply Hale to prison releasee reoffen-der sentences to prohibit consecutive sentences where the crimes are part of a single criminal episode. See Williams v. State, 804 So. 2d 572, 573-74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 703, 703-04 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); McIntyre v. State, 757 So. 2d 1288, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 767 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2000). Se…
-
Valentine Rodriguez v. State, 883 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…and other district courts have applied the reasoning of Daniels and Hale to prohibit consecutive sentences imposed under this Act when the sentences arise from crimes committed in a single criminal episode. See Smith, 824 So. 2d 263; Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).3 In this case, the circuit court sought to avoid the proscriptions of Hale and Daniels by imposing standard Criminal Punishment Code sentences consecutive to a PRR sentence…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Windisch v. State, 709 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Lenard Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- McINTYRE v. State, 757 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Suggs v. State, 681 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)