KELDRIN KEON 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed burglary and grand theft convictions but reversed consecutive sentences, remanding for concurrent sentencing where offenses arose from a single criminal episode.
When a habitual felony offender sentence and a non-HFO sentence arise from the same criminal episode, they must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively.
[1] A habitual felony offender sentence and a non-HFO sentence arising from the same criminal episode must be imposed concurrently rather than consecutively.
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 intelligenceJackson was convicted of burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. The trial court imposed a ten-year HFO sentence for burglary consecutive to a five-…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Keldrin Keon Jackson appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary of a conveyance and grand theft and alleges errors at trial and in sentencing. We affirm without discussion the issues raised except for one sentencing issue. The State concedes that the case should be remanded for the trial court to impose concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. We reverse and remand the sentences on that basis, and we affirm in all other respects.
The trial court imposed a habitual felony offender (HFO) sentence of ten years in prison for burglary of a conveyance consecutive to the non-HFO sentence of five years in prison for grand theft. These offenses occurred in a single criminal episode. Jackson is correct, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in imposing the consecutive HFO and non-HFO sentences when the underlying offenses arose from the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 525 (Fla.1993); Saldana v. State, 139 So.3d 351, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Therefore, we reverse the consecutive sentences and remand for the trial court to impose concurrent sentences. See Saldana, 139 So.3d at 353.
*972Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…liams, and Saldana to conclude that it is illegal under Hale to impose habitualized and unenhanced sentences that do not have a PRR designation to run consecutively to one another when they arise from the same criminal episode. See Jackson v. State, 159 So. 3d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)6 (concluding trial court erred in "impos[ing] a [HFO] sentence of ten years in prison for burglary of a conveyance consecutive to the non- HFO sentence of five years in prison for grand theft" where the offenses arose from th…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Eliseo Gonzales Saldana v. State, 139 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)