From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rolle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 1, 1996
668 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 94-03076.

March 1, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Fleischer, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Kenneth C. Rolle appeals his convictions and sentences for robbery and solicitation to purchase cocaine. We affirm the convictions without discussion, but reverse for resentencing.

Rolle received consecutive habitual offender sentences for the two convictions. However, the crimes he committed arose out of the same criminal episode. Consecutive habitual offender sentences cannot be imposed for multiple crimes occurring during a single episode. See State v. Hill, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1995); Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions that Rolle's enhanced sentences be ordered to run concurrently. The defendant need not be present.

RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rolle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Mar 1, 1996
668 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Rolle v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH C. ROLLE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Mar 1, 1996

Citations

668 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Windisch v. State

In reviewing Hale sentencing errors, this court has consistently applied the Hale instruction and remanded…

Suggs v. State

Further, a defendant need not be present for resentencing where habitual offender sentences are reversed,…