From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Parker

Supreme Court of Florida
Oct 5, 1995
660 So. 2d 1393 (Fla. 1995)

Opinion

No. 85548.

October 5, 1995.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Third District — Case No. 94-1384 (Dade County).

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, Hollywood, for Petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Rosa C. Figarola, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for Respondent.


We have for review Parker v. State, 651 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), in which the district court vacated John William Parker's sentence and certified as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Hill v. State, 645 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). 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.

In Hill, 645 So.2d at 91, the district court certified the following question:
Whether Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, [___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994)], precludes under all circumstances the imposition of consecutive sentences for crimes arising from a single criminal episode for habitual felony or habitual violent felony offenders.

For the reasons set forth in Hill, we approve the district court's decision in the instant case.

We decline to address the issues raised in Parker's answer brief.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

WELLS, J., dissents.


Summaries of

State v. Parker

Supreme Court of Florida
Oct 5, 1995
660 So. 2d 1393 (Fla. 1995)
Case details for

State v. Parker

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. JOHN WILLIAM PARKER, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Oct 5, 1995

Citations

660 So. 2d 1393 (Fla. 1995)

Citing Cases

State v. Wilson

State v. Campbell (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 38; Crim.R. 52(B). "Under a plain error analysis, reversal of a…

State v. Sopko

Under a plain error analysis, reversal of a conviction is appropriate only if it can be said that, but for…