TONY JACKSON, 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.
Tony Jackson appeals his sentences, arguing that his four consecutive ten-year habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences are illegal because they arose from a single criminal episode and must run concurrently. The trial court partially modified the sentences by removing the HFO designation from two counts but did not address the single criminal episode issue. The court reverses and remands, holding that while individual HFO sentences are not illegal, consecutive HFO sentences for offenses occurring during the same criminal episode are illegal and must be corrected.
While individual HFO sentences are not illegal and cannot be modified more than sixty days after imposition due to lack of jurisdiction, the consecutive nature of HFO sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode is illegal and must be corrected. The trial court lacks jurisdiction to reduce individual sentences on another count after sixty days, but retains authority to correct illegal sentences at any time.
[1] Consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for offenses committed during a single criminal episode are illegal.
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a facially legal sentence more than sixty days after its imposition.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“HFO sentences for offenses occurring during the same criminal episode must run concurrently.”
Establishes the core legal principle that consecutive HFO sentences for crimes in a single episode are illegal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was sentenced to four consecutive ten-year HFO sentences. He filed a motion for postconviction relief requesting an evidentiary hearing and ar…
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
BROWNING, J.
Appellant appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court in response to Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, Appellant requested an evidentiary hearing and alleged he was sentenced to four consecutive ten-year habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences for crimes committed during a single criminal episode. The trial court denied an evidentiary hearing and modified Appellant’s sentences by removing the HFO designation from two of the four counts for which Appellant had been sentenced. The sentences in all other respects remained the same. The trial court did not address Appellant’s contention that his offenses occurred during a single criminal episode.
On appeal, Appellant argues, among other things, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentences because more than sixty days had passed since their imposition. Further, Appellant argues the HFO sentences, individually, are not illegal, but the total sentence is illegal to the extent the terms run consecutively, as they arise from a single criminal episode. The State argues the modification is lawful. We agree with Appellant and reverse and remand.
HFO sentences for offenses occurring during the same criminal episode must run concurrently. Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1993); Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (stating consecutive HFO sentences for offenses occurring during the same criminal episode are illegal.) Although a trial court may correct an illegal sentence at any time, Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); Moore v. State, 768 So. 2d 1140, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), a court is without jurisdiction to modify a facially legal sentence imposed by it more than sixty days after its imposition. Brannan v. State, 651 So. 2d 751, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); McLemore v. State, 638 So. 2d 610, 611-612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Vazquez v. State, 595 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), citing Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(stating court may correct illegal sentence at any time but may not modify facially legal sentence on another count).
Here, Appellant’s HFO sentences, individually, are not illegal, and therefore cannot be reduced as attempted by the trial court, as sixty days had transpired since the imposition of sentence, and it lacks jurisdiction to effect such a change. Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1181 (Fla.2001). However, that portion of Appellant’s sentence imposing consecutive punishment is illegal and must be corrected for those offenses that occurred during the same criminal episode. Brannan, 651 So. 2d at 752.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand. Upon remand, the trial court shall attach portions of the files and records that conclusively show that the Appellant is not entitled to relief, or conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellant’s offenses occurred during a single criminal episode and if so determined, the trial court shall resentence Appellant in conformity with Hale.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BOOTH and POLSTON, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Janes, 351 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…final order and noted its disapproval of this Court’s decision in Magill v. State, 287 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), and its progeny. Morgan, 47 Fla. L. Weekly at S273. ---PAGE 6--- imposition. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), (c); Jackson v. State, 825 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Moreover, a rule 3.800(a) motion does not provide a court with jurisdiction to modify a legal sentence imposed on a count, even if the sentence for another count was found to be illegal. See Pitts v. State, 935 So. 2d…
-
State v. Stewart, 98 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…n years after its entry based on conflicting documents in the court file); Howard v. State, 914 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3.800(c) motion filed one day late); Jackson v. State, 825 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify HFO sentences where sentences were not illegal and sixty days had transpired since imposition of the sentence). “When a trial court imposes a sentence without having jur…
-
Waymond Joe Gibson v. State, 962 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…s ineffective during that resentencing hearing. We reverse the summary denial of relief for either an evidentiary hearing or the [*938] attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Gibson’s ground for relief. See Jackson v. State, 825 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Kiedrowski v. State, 876 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). POLEN, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Neilsen Arelen Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Moore v. State, 768 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Consuela Michelle McLEMORE v. State, 638 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Lauro Vazquez v. State, 595 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Brannan v. State, 651 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Wright v. State, 765 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)