Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1994

Brown v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 28, 1994 · No. 94-2067 · Schwartz, C.J., and Nesbitt and Green

647 So. 2d 333; 1994 WL 715207 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Windisch v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Smith v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Ortiz v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Suggs v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Pearce v. Sheffey (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

647 So.2d 333 (1994)

Shaun BROWN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 94-2067.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 28, 1994.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Linda S. Katz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GREEN, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the resentencing which followed our decision in Brown v. State, 617 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Because the offenses in question were committed during the same criminal transaction, it was error to impose consecutive rather than concurrent habitual offender sentences. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). The cause is remanded *334 for correction of the sentences accordingly. The defendant need not be present.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.