PARNELL SMITH
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
When a defendant is convicted of multiple felonies and consecutive sentences are imposed, the trial court's jurisdiction applies to one-third of the total consecutive sentences, and sentences for multiple offenses in the same indictment must be served concurrently unless the court directs otherwise.
[1] When a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment, sentences of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the trial court direct…
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 intelligenceParnell Smith was convicted of two or more felonies and received consecutive sentences in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. Smith appealed the sentenci…
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 Sentencing Enhancement Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. § 947.16(3), Fla. Stat. (1981) (“When any person is convicted of two or more felonies and consecutive sentences are imposed,
then the jurisdiction of the trial court judge as provided herein shall apply to one-third of the total consecutive sentences imposed.”); § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) (“A defendant convicted of two or more offenses charged in the same indictment . . . shall serve the sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively.”); see also Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521, 524–25 (Fla. 1993) (limiting its holding to sentencing of habitual offenders); Almendares v. State,
916 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding exception to rule involving sentences imposed under various sentencing enhancement statutes “not applicable to the present case as [appellant] was not sentenced pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Almendares v. State, 916 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)