RAMON M. SANCHEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Single Criminal Episode Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the defendants convictions, but reverse for resentencing. The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a prison releasee reoffender to consecutive terms of imprisonment. Although there were two victims involved, the defendant’s crimes arose from a single criminal episode as they occurred without interruption in time or location. See Staten v. State, 600 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that even though there were two victims, a single criminal episode occurred because there was not an interruption in time and place); Gloster v. State, 568 So.2d 1318, 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“notwithstanding the fact that different victims were involved, all three offenses occurred without interruption in time and location”). As such, we find that Robinson v. State, 829 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), controls here and requires that the defendant be resentenced.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED for resentencing.
ALLEN, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tarelo v. State, 153 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ntence from being imposed consecutively to a PRR sentence, the court stated: “[T]his Court has never applied Hale to the PRR statute.” Cotto, 139 So. 3d at 289. Our position on this issue is in conflict with our sister courts. See Sanchez v. State, 12 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Boyd v. State, 988 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Pifer v. State, 59 So. 3d 225, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Gonzalez v. State, 876 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). This issue is currently…
Authorities Cited
- Clem Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Robinson v. State, 829 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Staten v. State, 600 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)