Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

744 So. 2d 583

Docket No. 98-03362.

Trotter v. State

Robert Earl TROTTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 17, 1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-11-17

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2003

4 state decisions

Relies on 630 So. 2d 521 - Hale v. State · 714 So. 2d 429 - State v. Mancino · 491 So. 2d 1120 - Murray v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-11-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*584 Matthew J. Wells, Tampa, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In this appeal from a resentencing proceeding, Robert Earl Trotter argues that the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive habitual offender sentence in count eleven, involving a robbery that occurred at an automatic teller machine (ATM). He also argues that the trial court erred in denying him credit for prior prison time served. We affirm as to the consecutive sentence, but remand for correction of the sentencing documents to reflect the appropriate credit for time served.

¶5We reject Trotter's argument that the consecutive sentence in count eleven violated the rule in Hale v. State,630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), that habitual offender sentences may not be imposed consecutively when the offenses arise out of a single criminal episode. After sexually battering the victim in her home, Trotter moved her to a separate location for the ATM robbery. Although all counts involved a single victim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the ATM robbery was sufficiently separate in location to permit the imposition of the consecutive term. See Murray v. State,491 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1986); Parker v. State,633 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

¶6The State concedes that the sentencing documents do not reflect credit for the prior prison time served, but it correctly points out that this sentencing error was not preserved below. Nevertheless, a sentence that fails to grant proper credit for time served is an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino,714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998). And, because an illegal sentence is fundamentally erroneous, it may be corrected on direct appeal. See Bain v. State,730 So.2d 296, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we remand with directions that Trotter be awarded the appropriate credit for time served. Trotter need not be present.

¶7Affirmed in part, remanded with directions.

¶8FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

/744/so2d/583 · .json · Public domain