MICHAEL ROBINSON, 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.
Michael Robinson challenged a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and an illegal sentence. The court affirmed the denial of his first two claims but reversed and remanded his third claim regarding the illegality of consecutive sentences imposed as a prison releasee reoffender for crimes constituting a single criminal episode.
Hale v. State applies to prison releasee reoffender sentences to prohibit consecutive sentences where the crimes are part of a single criminal episode. The trial court's summary denial of Robinson's claim regarding the illegality of his consecutive sentences was improper and the matter must be remanded for the trial court to either refute the claim with record attachments or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant's sentences for multiple crimes arising from a single criminal episode cannot be both enhanced under the habitual offender statute and imposed consecutively.
[2] The prohibition against imposing consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode, established in Hale v. …
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“a defendant's sentences for multiple crimes arising from a single criminal episode cannot be both enhanced under the habitual offender statute and imposed consecutively”
Establishes the Hale principle that consecutive enhancement sentences are barred for crimes in 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 intelligenceRobinson pleaded guilty and received consecutive sentences as a prison releasee reoffender. He claimed he did not know he would be sentenced under the…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion. The appellant brings three claims: (1) his plea was involuntary where he did not know that he would be sentenced under the prison releasee reof- fender act and that he would receive consecutive sentences, (2) his counsel was ineffective by advising him to plead and failing to advise him that he would receive consecutive sentences, and (3) his sentence is illegal in that he received consecutive sentences as a prison releasee reoffender when his crimes were part of a single criminal episode.
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s first two claims because they are refuted by the record. We write only to discuss the appellant’s third claim, that his sentence is illegal in that he received consecutive sentences as a prison releasee reoffender when his crimes were part of a single criminal episode. As to that issue, we reverse and remand with instructions.
The supreme court in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524-25 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), held that a defendant’s sentences for multiple crimes arising from a single criminal episode cannot be both enhanced under the habitual offender statute and imposed consecutively. This court has not addressed whether Hale similarly applies to prohibit consecutive sentences where the sentences for single criminal episode crimes were already enhanced through the prison releasee reoffender act. See § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The Fourth and Fifth District 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).
See also Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087, 1088 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (applying Hale to violent career criminal sanctions).
We adopt the reasoning of the Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal and hold that Hale applies to prison releasee reoffender sentences.
This court’s decision in Branch v. State, 790 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), does not require a contrary result. Branch stands for the general proposition that because the prison releasee reoffender act does not determine whether sentences under it are to be concurrent or consecutive, and because section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1997), vests discretion in the trial court to sentence defendants to either concurrent or consecutive sentences, both types of sentences are permitted under the prison releasee reoffender act. Id. at 439. Branch did not address the issue of whether consecutive sentences for a single criminal episode are permitted under the prison releasee reoffender act, or barred under the reasoning of Hale.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the crimes involved in Branch arose under the course of a single criminal episode. The Fifth District Court of Appeal has correctly distinguished Branch in the situation where the crimes are part of a single criminal episode, finding that Hale applies in this situation to preclude consecutive sentences for prison releasee reoffenders. Durr, 773 So. 2d at 646 n. 1; Williams, 804 So. 2d at 573.
We accordingly reverse the summary denial of this claim and remand with instructions for the trial court either to refute the appellant’s claim with record attachments or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mosley, 149 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 2014)…dants when the sentences arise from crimes committed during a single criminal episode. 112 So. 3d at 539. Mosley relied on First District caselaw based on Hale. See id. (citing Preston v. State, 134 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Robinson v. State, 829 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). However, in Reeves and Cotto, this Court concluded that Hale is inapplicable to cases involving section 775.082(9) because Hale addressed a different statute. Conversely, Young held that a trial court may impose consecutive P…
-
Young v. State, 37 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…istrict concluded that a defendant could not be sentenced to consecutive PRR sentences arising from the same criminal episode, citing Rodriguez v. State, 835 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002) (citing Smith, 824 So. 2d at 264); Robinson v. State, 829 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing Hale, supra; Williams, supra; and Smith, 800 So. 2d at 703-04, among others); McIntyre v. State, 757 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing Hale, supra). In Williams v. State, 804 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002…
-
Mosley v. State, 112 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ease reoffender (PRR) and designated a sexual predator. PRR sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode. See Preston v. State, — So. 3d -, -(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Robinson v. State, 829 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because we conclude that Count I and Count II occurred during the same criminal episode, Appellant’s consecutive PRR sentences were error. Upon resentencing, the trial court may remove the PRR designation on one of the co…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Snead v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Blanc v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Lenard Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Williams v. State, 804 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Branch v. State, 790 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- McINTYRE v. State, 757 So. 2d 1288 (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)