¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶2Appellee has sought a rehearing saying this case is in conflict with Downs v. State, 616 So.2d 444 (Fla.1993) because Downsheld that “when different crimes are committed in the same episode, minimum mandatory sentences can be consecutive.”
¶3Appellee has not read Downscompletely or properly applied it to this case. In this case appellant was given minimum mandatory sentences because he was deemed an habitual offender and the applicable sentencing statute requires a minimum mandatory as an enhancement to a non-minimum offense. § 775.084(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993). However the various offenses of which appellant was convicted do not themselves carry a minimum mandatory so stacking is prohibited. See Downs, 616 So.2d at 446 (footnote 3); Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992).
¶4DENIED.
¶5HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.