KHALIFA S. RASHAD, A/K/A ROBERT P. FOXWORTH, 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.
Appellant's convictions for burglary, grand theft, and resisting an officer were affirmed, but the case was remanded because consecutive habitual offender sentences for crimes arising from the same criminal episode violated Florida law.
Consecutive habitual offender sentences cannot be imposed when both crimes result from a single criminal episode.
[1] Consecutive habitual offender sentences cannot be imposed for multiple offenses arising from a single criminal episode.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted by jury of burglary of a clothing store, grand theft of items from that store, and resisting an officer without violence. He w…
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 Same Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the judgments and sentences entered by the trial court after he was convicted by a jury of burglary, grand theft and resisting an officer without violence. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years on the burglary offense and five years on the grand theft, with the sentences to run consecutively. He was sentenced to time served on the other offense. We affirm the judgments but remand to the trial court to make the sentences run concurrently.
Appellant argues three points on this appeal. He claims the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal, in giving the jury instruction on unexplained possession of stolen property, and in running the sentences consecutively. We find merit in the sentencing issue only. Appellant was convicted of burglary of a clothing store and the theft of items from that store. The burglary and grand theft arose from the same criminal episode. Appellant correctly asserts he cannot be sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences when both crimes result from one criminal episode. Hale v. State, 680 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994).
We remand to the trial court to correct appellant’s sentence by imposing concurrent sentences.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.