BRYAN FLOWERS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 1st DCA | 2018-02-23
No. 17-3298
237 So. 3d 482 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2018) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

A sentence under the habitual felony offender statute does not violate Hale v. State when the aggregate sentence does not exceed either the maximum possible with all sentences enhanced and run concurrently or the maximum possible with no sentences enhanced and all run consecutively.


Headnotes

[1] Under the habitual felony offender statute, a sentence does not violate Hale v. …

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

Facts & Procedural History

Bryan Flowers appealed his sentence from the Circuit Court for Duval County, challenging whether it violated the sentencing framework established in H…

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.


Opinion of the Court

February 23, 2018 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Hamilton v. State, 996 So. 2d 964, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (rejecting defendant’s claim that his sentence violates Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993), where, as here, the sentence “do[es] not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum he could have received if all sentences subject to enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute had been enhanced (but run concurrently), and because his sentence[] also do[es] not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum he could have received if none of his sentences had been enhanced but all had been ordered to run consecutively”). WETHERELL, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur.

2

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw