THOMAS L. TURNER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of habitual offender sentencing challenge, holding that consecutive sentences for sale and possession of the same cocaine in a single criminal episode may violate Hale v. State and warrant resentencing.
A defendant may raise via Rule 3.800(a) a claim that consecutive habitual offender sentences for convictions arising from the same criminal episode are illegal where the illegality is apparent from the face of the record.
[1] A claim that consecutive habitual offender sentences were imposed for convictions arising from the same criminal episode may be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Crimina…
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 intelligenceTurner received consecutive habitual offender sentences in two cases for sale of and possession with intent to sell the same piece of cocaine in a sin…
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 Same Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the summary denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging that he was improperly given consecutive habitual offender sentences for convictions arising out of the same criminal episode, contrary to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). The trial court denied appellant’s motion, stating that it could not be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a), and that it would be untimely if considered pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, appellant’s claim may properly be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a) because he alleges that the illegality of the sentences is apparent from the face of the record. See, e.g., Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
It appears from appellant’s motion and attachments thereto that in counts one and two of case numbers 92-636 and 92-649, he received consecutive habitual offender sentences for sale of, and possession with intent to sell, the same piece of cocaine in a single criminal episode. If this proves to be true, appellant would appear to be entitled to relief. See Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying appellant’s claim, and remand to the trial court with directions that it either attach to an order again denying the claim record excerpts conclusively refuting the claim, or resentence appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 816 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…that the different offenses arose during the same criminal episode, the trial court may address the Hale issue pursuant to rule 3.800, which may be filed at any time. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Turner v. State, 804 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Johnson v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also Crotts v. State, 795 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (rejecting application of successiveness and law-of-the-case doctrines to defendant’s challenge to an HFO sentenc…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Solomon Timothy Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)