JUAN NORBERTO ESPINOSA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 trial court's denial of motion to correct sentence and remanded to make consecutive sentences concurrent where the State conceded the sentencing error.
Consecutive sentences must be corrected to concurrent sentences on counts one and two where the State concedes the sentencing error under Hale v. State.
[1] When the State concedes that consecutive sentences were imposed in violation of applicable law, the trial court must correct the sentencing order to impose concurrent sen…
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 intelligence“consecutive sentences should not have been imposed on counts one and two”
State's concession in response to defendant's motion to correct sentence
Espinosa was sentenced to consecutive sentences on counts one and two in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 02-14356. The State conceded in 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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juan Norberto Espinosa appeals an order denying his motion to correct sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
As one of his issues, defendant-appellant Espinosa argues that consecutive sentences should not have been imposed on him. The State filed a response in the trial court where it conceded that the defendant was correct with regard to the sentences imposed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 02-14356. Apparently basing its response on Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), the State said that consecutive sentences should not have been imposed on counts one and two. The State acknowledged that the sentencing order should be corrected so that the sentence on count two would be concurrent with the sentence on count one. Despite this concession, the trial court did not correct the sentencing order, and instead denied the defendant’s motion in its totality. We reverse the order now before us and remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing order to make count two of circuit court ease number 02-14356 be concurrent with count one. The defendant need not be present.
We concur with the trial court in the denial of the defendant’s remaining claims for relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentencing order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espinosa v. State, 263 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)