PATRICE RATCLIFFE, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Cotto v. State, 139 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2014)
  …lly the same as the HFO provision, except that the HVFO provision applies to defendants who were previously convicted of certain enumerated violent felonies. Both the HFO and HVFO provisions are enhancements to which Hale applies. See State v. Hill, 660 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1995). Together, the HFO and HVFO provisions are called the habitual offender statute. See, e.g., State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 991 (Fla.2008). Although the habitual offender statute does not contain an express statement of legislativ…
• Kiedrowski v. State, 876 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
  …run concurrently, or if neither had been enhanced and run consecutively. As such the appellant’s sentence violates Hale. Although appellant was not sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 5 years for the second offense, as explained in State v. Hill, 660 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1995), the requirement that sentences run consecutively is not limited to only the minimum mandatory portion of. a total sentence: The State argues that Hale and its predecessors, Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), and Daniels v. State,…
• Simmons v. State, 666 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1995)
  …ludes under all circumstances the imposition of consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode for habitual felony or habitual violent felony offenders. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In State v. Hill, 660 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1995), we have answered this same certified question in the affirmative. For the reasons set forth in Hill, we approve the district court’s decision in the instant ease. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ…

Authorities Cited

• Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1995)