LACHARVIS WILLIAMS, 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.
Lacharvis Williams appealed his conviction for second degree murder, burglary, and grand theft, challenging the imposition of a consecutive 10-year sentence for grand theft as a habitual violent felony offender. The court reversed the consecutive sentencing on the grand theft conviction because habitual offender enhancement sentences cannot be made consecutive to other sentences arising from the same criminal episode.
The court held that a habitual violent felony offender sentence, being an enhanced sentence, cannot be imposed consecutively to other sentences arising from a single criminal episode. Once habitual offender sentencing has been used to enhance a sentence beyond the statutory maximum on one or more counts, consecutive sentencing cannot be used to further lengthen the overall sentence.
[1] A sentence imposed under the habitual violent felony offender statute, which is an enhanced sentence, cannot be ordered to run consecutively to other sentences arising fr…
[2] A prison releasee reoffender sentence, unlike a habitual violent felony offender sentence, is not considered an enhanced sentence and may be ordered to run consecutively…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“once the habitual offender sentencing scheme was utilized to enhance a sentence beyond the statutory maximum on one or more counts arising from a single criminal episode, consecutive sentencing cannot be used to further lengthen the overall sentence”
Establishes the core legal principle preventing consecutive sentencing when habitual offender enhancement has already enhanced a sentence beyond statutory maximum for crimes from the same episode
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted by jury of second degree murder while carrying a firearm, burglary of a dwelling while in possession of a firearm, and grand th…
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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
Although the appellant, Lacharvis Williams, raises a number of issues in this appeal from his judgment and sentence for second degree murder while carrying or possessing a firearm, burglary of a dwelling while in possession of a firearm, and grand theft, we find only one issue to be meritorious. Because the sentence imposed upon him for grand theft should not have been consecutive to the other sentences he received, we reverse for resen-tencing regarding this crime.
After the conclusion of his jury trial the State filed a notice of its intention to seek habitual offender status with respect to Mr. Williams, as well as a notice of his qualification as a prison releasee reoffen-der. At sentencing Mr. Williams was found to be both a prison releasee reoffen-der and a habitual violent felony offender. As to the murder and burglary charges, the trial court sentenced him to serve life sentences as a prison releasee reoffender. As to the grand theft charge, Mr. Williams was sentenced to ten years imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender (with five years being mandatory), to be served consecutively to the two life sentences.
On appeal Mr. Williams argues that his sentence for grand theft should not have been imposed consecutively to the other sentences because all charges grew out of the same criminal episode, and because the habitual violent felony offender sentence had already been enhanced. He argues, and we agree, that the point of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 909, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994) and Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992), was that once the habitual offender sentencing scheme was utilized to enhance a sentence beyond the statutory maximum on one or more counts arising from a single criminal episode, consecutive sentencing cannot be used to further lengthen the overall sentence. See Fuller v. State, 867 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 887 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).
Although the State calls our attention to Reeves v. State, 920 So.2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), approved, 957 So.2d 625 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 537, 169 L.Ed.2d 377 (2007), that case does not authorize the sentence here. In Reeves the supreme court determined that because a prison releasee reoffender sentence is not an enhanced sentence, it could be required to be served consecutive to an unenhanced Criminal Punishment Code sentence arising out of the same criminal episode. A habitual violent felony offender sentence, however, is an enhanced sentence. See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (2008). Thus, under the reasoning of the supreme court in Hale, the consecutive sentence for the grand theft conviction was improper.
*1118Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence in all respects except regarding the consecutive nature of the habitual violent felony offender sentence for grand theft. As to that charge, we remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and EVANDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cotto v. State, 139 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2014)…Third District Court of Appeal in Cotto v. State, 89 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA [*285] 2012), on the basis that the Third District certified that its decision is in conflict with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Williams v. State, 10 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. FACTS This matter concerns the sentence imposed on Cotto for several crimes he committed on December 1, 2002. On that date, Cotto approached a stranger on a street in So…1 / 2
-
Cotto v. State, 89 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…trial court did not order that Cotto serve two or more enhanced sentences consecutively, the structure of the sentences did not run afoul of Hale. We note that our holding directly conflicts with the Fifth District’s decision in Williams v. State, 10 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). There, the Fifth District reversed the trial court’s imposition of a sentence enhanced under the habitual violent felony offender statute consecutively to a prison releasee reoffender sentence arising from the same criminal epis…1 / 2
-
Booth v. State, 18 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…trial judge could not legally impose consecutive HFO sentences on crimes arising from the single criminal episode alleged in the indictment, citing to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). This concession was proper. See id.; Williams v. State, 10 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 5th [*1144] DCA 2009). Therefore, we reverse as to this issue, with directions that the court impose the sentences concurrently on remand. Osorio Issue Next, Booth argues, and the State concedes, that Booth’s conviction for third degree felo…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Reeves v. State, 957 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2007)
- Snead v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Blanc v. United States, 513 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1994)
- Fuller v. State, 867 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- King v. State, 920 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Cravero v. LLP Mortg. Ltd., 887 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Fuller, 887 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)