From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Philmore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 24, 2000
760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Summary

In Philmore v. State, 760 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), this court held that PRR sentences may not be imposed consecutively for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.

Summary of this case from Claycomb v. State

Opinion

No. 4D99-1559.

Opinion filed May 24, 2000.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Harold J. Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-13271 CF AO2 T.

Robert S. Gershman of Gershman Goldstein, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and August A. Bonavita, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant, Lenard Philmore, appeals from his convictions and sentences for attempted first degree murder with a firearm and burglary of an occupied structure with a firearm. We affirm the trial court's denial of Philmore's motion to suppress and affirm his sentences under section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), which this court has found to be constitutional. See Smith v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2393 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 20, 1999); Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), review granted, No. SC96713 (Fla. Apr. 12, 2000); Young v. State, 719 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1999).

On his two convictions Philmore was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act to two life terms to run consecutively. Philmore asserts and the state concedes that the consecutive sentences were error. In Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), the supreme court held that once the sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced, then the total penalty may not be further increased by ordering that they run consecutively. As Philmore's sentence was enhanced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, his sentences should run concurrently. We remand to the trial court to correct the sentence.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMAND FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.

KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Philmore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 24, 2000
760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

In Philmore v. State, 760 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), this court held that PRR sentences may not be imposed consecutively for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.

Summary of this case from Claycomb v. State

noting that "once the sentences for multiple crimes committed during a single criminal episode have been enhanced, then the total penalty may not be further increased by ordering that they run consecutively"

Summary of this case from Gonzalez v. State
Case details for

Philmore v. State

Case Details

Full title:LENARD PHILMORE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 24, 2000

Citations

760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Young v. State

Through appellate counsel, defendant alleges that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive prison…

Gonzalez v. State

the other PRR sentences imposed (i.e. now, solely Count I). Because the facts of this case clearly…