SOLOMON TIMOTHY GREEN, 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.
Solomon Green was convicted of sale of cocaine and possession with intent to sell based on a single transaction. While affirming his convictions and habitual offender status, the court reversed his sentence because the trial court improperly imposed consecutive habitual offender sanctions for crimes arising from a single criminal episode.
A trial court may not both enhance sentences pursuant to the habitual offender statute and then increase the total penalty by ordering the sentences to run consecutively when the offenses occur in a single criminal episode. This rule applies regardless of whether the sentence includes a minimum mandatory term or whether imprisonment is followed by probation.
[1] Consecutive habitual offender sanctions may not be imposed when the offenses arise out of a single criminal episode.
[2] A trial court may not enhance sentences pursuant to the habitual offender statute and then increase the total penalty by ordering consecutive sanctions for offenses arisi…
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“Under the habitual offender statute, when the offenses occur in one criminal episode a trial court may not both enhance the sentences pursuant to the act and then increase the total penalty by ordering that they run consecutively.”
Establishes the core legal rule that prohibits double enhancement through both statute application and consecutive sentencing in single criminal episodes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen sold one twenty-dollar piece of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. A jury convicted him of two second-degree felonies: possession of cocain…
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Solomon Green challenges his convictions for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. He also seeks review of his sentence as a habitual offender. Green contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sanctions as a habitual offender when the crimes charged arose out of a single criminal episode. This argument is well taken. Accordingly, we reverse his sentence. We affirm Green’s conviction and his status as a habitual offender without discussion.
A jury found Green guilty of two' crimes based on his sale of one twenty-dollar piece of crack cocaine to an undercover officer: (1) possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver; and (2) sale of cocaine. Both of these crimes were second degree felonies. §§ 893.03(2)(a), 893.13(l)(a)l., Fla.Stat. (1991). The court determined that Green was a habitual offender and sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment for sale of cocaine, followed by ten years’ probation for possession with intent to deliver.
The trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual offender sanctions under these circumstances. Green’s crimes occurred in one criminal episode; both charges were based on the sale of one piece of cocaine. See Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993).
Under the habitual offender statute, when the offenses occur in one criminal episode a trial court may not both enhance the sentences pursuant to the act and then increase the total penalty by ordering that they run consecutively. Hale; Smith v. State, 632 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), appeal dismissed, 639 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1994).
This rule applies both when the sentence includes a minimum mandatory term and when it does not. See Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Although the sanctions in Hale, Smith and Dietrich were consecutive sentences of imprisonment, the same reasoning also pertains to a sentence of imprisonment to be followed by probation. We reverse and remand for resentencing. Of course, probation cannot be served concurrently with a term of imprisonment. If the lower court decides to sentence Green to imprisonment on his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, the sentence must run concurrently with the sentence imposed for his conviction for sale of cocaine.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
BLUE and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…deliver. We conclude, and the state concedes, that the trial court erred in sentencing Jackson to consecutive sanctions of imprisonment and probation as a habitual offender for crimes that arose out of a single criminal episode. See Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Upon remand, we remind the trial court that it must advise Jackson orally at resentencing of any discretionary costs and special conditions of probation it seeks to impose. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (e…
-
Benjamin v. State, 667 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ntence of imprisonment on one count, foEowed by a term of probation on another count arising from a single criminal episode. See Jackson v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Taylor v. State, 658 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As a probationary sentence cannot be imposed concurrently with a prison term, upon resentencing, if the court decides to impose a term of incarceration for the offense of possession of burglary tools, that sentence must be made…
-
Taylor v. State, 658 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…tute and then increase the total penalty by ordering that the sentences run consecutively. This also applies to a sentence of imprisonment on one count, followed by a term of probation on another count arising from the same incident. Green v. State, 643 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentences on all eight counts and remand to the trial court to resentence him to concurrent sentences. Since appellant cannot serve a [*636] probationary term while incarcerated, if the trial…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Dietrich v. State, 635 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Owens v. Leisure Mgmt. Miami, Inc., 632 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)