BENJAMIN R. 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.
Consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode are illegal.
[1] Consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences arising from a single criminal episode are illegal.
[2] A claim that consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences are improper may be raised in a postconviction motion.
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 intelligenceAppellant challenged the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences were i…
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
WHATLEY, Judge.
Benjamin Smith challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Flor ida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the order of the trial court arid remand for further proceedings.
Smith alleged that his consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences, imposed pursuant to section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (1999), are illegal because 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 Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087, 1088 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 779 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We now align ourselves with the Fourth and Fifth Districts and affirmatively hold the same.
Smith’s claim is properly raised in a postconviction motion. See Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that defendant must raise his claim 'that his consecutive prison releasee reoffender sentences are improper in postconviction proceedings where he did not preserve the issue for direct appeal).
Appellant alleged that his claim could be determined from the face of the record, and he, therefore, presented a cognizable rule 3.800(a) claim. See Wilson v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Should the trial court determine that Smith’s claim cannot be resolved without resort to extra-record facts, Smith may raise his claim in a timely filed, properly sworn, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durwin Torbert v. State, 832 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…mposition of consecutive enhancement sentences for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(applying Hale to consecutive sentences imposed under the PRR Act). See also Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Williams v. State, 804 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Durr v. State, 773 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…
-
Deron Delarease Green v. State, 845 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…. 2d 952 (Fla.1992)(habitual violent felony offender statute). The Second and Fourth Districts have followed Hale and held that consecutive prison releasee reof-fender sentences that arose from a single criminal episode were illegal. Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In the instant case, the defendant’s convictions arose out of the same criminal episode. For the reasons discussed abov…
-
Valentine Rodriguez v. State, 883 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…aggravated assault. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Mr. Rodriguez’s motion for postconviction relief, which pointed out that these consecutive sentences were illegal because the crimes occurred in a single criminal episode. See Smith v. State, 824 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). To remedy this, the circuit court resen-tenced Mr. Rodriguez, with the State’s consent, by merely removing the PRR enhancement from the sentences for the three counts of felony battery. Thus Mr. Rodriguez’s current sentences refl…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Lenard Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Jones v. State, 779 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Algernon E. Wilson v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Grimmage v. State, 802 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)