WILBERT HOLLINS, 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.
Wilbert Hollins appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Hollins failed to adequately allege that his crimes were committed during a single criminal episode as required under Hale v. State, but allowed him to refile if he can properly establish this fact.
The court affirmed the denial of Hollins's Rule 3.800(a) motion because it was facially insufficient; he failed to allege that the court records demonstrate his crimes were committed during the same criminal episode, which is a prerequisite to relief under the rule. The affirmance was without prejudice to allow Hollins to file another motion if he can properly allege this fact.
[1] Minimum mandatory portions of sentences must run concurrently if the offenses were committed within the course of a single criminal episode.
[2] A trial court errs in summarily denying a post-conviction relief allegation concerning the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences without making a factual…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the sentences must run concurrently”
Establishes the core holding from Hale v. State that prohibits consecutive sentences for crimes during a single criminal episode when enhanced through habitual offender statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollins was convicted of attempted first degree murder with a firearm and kidnapping. He was initially sentenced to life with a three-year mandatory m…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
The defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder with a firearm and kidnapping. On the attempted first degree murder conviction, the trial court imposed an upward departure sentence of life with a three-year mandatory minimum for the firearm. On the kidnapping conviction, the trial court imposed a consecutive habitual felony offender sentence of life with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum.
We affirmed the convictions, but reversed the upward departure sentence for attempted first degree murder, and remanded with directions to impose a guidelines sentence. Hollins v. State, 608 So.2d 546 (Fía. 4th DCA 1992).
On remand, the trial court sentenced the defendant to forty years for attempted first degree murder, consecutive to the habitual offender sentence of life for kidnapping. We affirmed that sentence. Hollins v. State, 636 So.2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
The defendant later filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. In his motion, the defendant argued that his consecutive sentences were illegal under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993). In Hale, our supreme court held that once the sentences from multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced through the habitual offender statutes, the sentences must run concurrently. Id. at 524-25. The trial court summarily denied the defendant’s motion.
This appeal followed. We initially recognize we have relied on Hale to hold that a non-habitual offender sentence cannot run consecutively to a habitual offender sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum for the degree of felony subject to enhanced sentencing. See, e.g., Peel v. State, 970 So.2d 946, 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). But see Mills v. State, 23 So.3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[Consecutive HFO and non-HFO sentences imposed for crimes committed during a single criminal episode are legal if the aggregate sentence is less than that which could have been imposed if all HFO eligible convictions had been enhanced and ordered to run concurrently.”) (emphasis added).
However, the defendant’s rule 3.800 motion here was facially insufficient. He failed to allege how the court records demonstrate that his crimes were committed during the same criminal episode. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (“A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief .... ”).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion on the ground discussed above. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the defendant filing another rule 3.800(a) motion if he can allege how *8the court records demonstrate that his crimes were committed during the same criminal episode. The remainder of the defendant’s arguments in his initial brief were not, raised in his motion, and thus were not preserved.
Affirmed without prejudice.
Gerber, C.J., Warner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Downs v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…lish a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) claim that his habitual offender sentences were imposed in violation of Hale, a defendant must identify with particularity the nonhearsay record documents upon which he relies."); see, e.g., Hollins v. State, 231 So. 3d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("[T]he defendant's rule 3.800 motion here was facially insufficient. He failed to allege how the court records demonstrate that his crimes were committed during the same criminal episode."); see also Theophile v. State, 967…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Mills v. State, 23 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Hollins v. State, 608 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Lipsitt v. Lipsitt, 608 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Peel v. State, 970 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)