JOHN EARL HUBBARD, 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.
Appellate court reversed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that consecutive sentences for burglary and attempted sexual battery arising from a single criminal episode must be imposed concurrently.
Consecutive sentences imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode constitute an illegal sentence that must be corrected to concurrent sentences.
[1] Consecutive sentences imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode constitute an illegal sentence subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Proc…
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 intelligenceHubbard was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to thirty years for burglary and ten years for attempted sexual battery, both occurring on…
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 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
John Earl Hubbard appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to consecutive terms of thirty years’ imprisonment for a burglary and ten years’ imprisonment for an attempted sexual battery, both of which occurred on May 15, 1989. He did not file a motion to correct any sentencing error within two years of the supreme court’s opinion in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). Prior to Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002), this court held that Mr. Hubbard’s claim must be pursued under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and not rule 3.800(a). See Hubbard v. State, 773 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Downs v. State, 870 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Following the supreme court’s opinion in Burgess, which permits some Hale issues to be resolved under rule 3.800(a), Mr. Hubbard again challenged his consecutive sentences as illegal on the face of the record.
This court asked the State to respond to his new petition. To the State’s credit, it reviewed the record and has concluded that Mr. Hubbard is entitled to relief because the consecutive sentences arise out of a single criminal episode. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion and remand to the trial court to enter concurrent sentences for these two offenses.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Burgess v. State, 831 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)
- Hubbard v. State, 773 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Ellis D. Downs v. State, 870 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)