BRYAN BRASWELL, 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.
The court held that consecutive habitual felony offender sentences are prohibited for offenses committed during a single criminal episode.
Appellant was convicted of false imprisonment and felony battery, designated a habitual felony offender, and sentenced to consecutive terms. He appeal…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of false imprisonment and felony battery after an incident with his ex-girlfriend that took place in July 2012. He was designated a habitual felony offender (HFO) on both counts and sentenced to 90.375 months in prison followed by 5 years probation. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively.
Appellant raises three issues in this direct appeal. First, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence at trial. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive HFO sentences. Third, he argues that the Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) scoresheet and order of probation contain scrivener’s errors in that they incorrectly indicate that he entered a plea in this case.
We affirm the first issue without comment. As to the second issue, we agree with Appellant. The trial court is prohibited from imposing consecutive HFO sentences for offenses that were committed during a single criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 524-25 (Fla.1994). Accordingly, although we affirm Appellant’s convictions, we reverse his sentences and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the restrictions on enhanced sentencing. On remand, the trial court should correct the CPC scoresheet and order of probation to reflect that Appellant was found guilty by a jury verdict. See Murray v. State, 164 So.3d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA2015).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
WOLF and BILBREY, JJ., and HULSLANDER, VICTOR L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connolly v. State, 240 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…hat the convictions for the sexual battery and lewd or lascivious battery violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy1 because both convictions are based upon the same criminal act. The State concedes error. See Shipman v. State , 171 So. 3d 199, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (affirming defendant's conviction for sexual battery on a person aged twelve years or older, but reversing conviction for lewd or lascivious battery on a person aged twelve years or older but less than sixteen years of age b…
-
Orion Christopher Gardiner v. State, 242 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Bennett v. State, 257 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Murray v. State, 164 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)