Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

835 So. 2d 1172

Docket No. 2D01-5208.

Rodriguez v. State

Valentine RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 13, 2002.

Rehearing Denied February 3, 2003.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-12-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 2010

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a] defendant cannot be sentenced to consecutive Prison Releasee Reoffender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 876 So. 2d 658 - Gonzalez v. State

Relies on 824 So. 2d 263 - Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-12-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2*1173 Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3NORTHCUTT, Judge.

¶4A defendant cannot be sentenced to consecutive Prison Releasee Reoffender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode. Smith v. State,824 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Valentine Rodriguez contends that his consecutive P.R.R. sentences are illegal for that reason. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to committing an aggravated assault and a felony battery against the same victim on the same day. However, we cannot discern from the record or the transcript of the plea colloquy whether the offenses were, in fact, committed in the same criminal episode. Therefore, we affirm Rodriguez's sentences without prejudice to any right he may have to raise this claim in a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion.

¶5Affirmed.

¶6ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

/835/so2d/1172 · .json · Public domain