134 So. 3d 992
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Preston appeals his battery and two aggravated stalking convictions and sentences.
- The court affirms the convictions but finds error in making the two aggravated stalking sentences consecutive.
- Preston was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR); PRR sentences cannot run consecutively for offenses from a single criminal episode.
- The amended information charged burglary with battery and two aggravated stalking counts, one based on a court-order violation and one on a credible threat.
- Two victims are Krystal Foxworth and her mother; jury found Krystal as victim for Count II and Krystal and her mother for Count III.
- There was no significant temporal or locational separation between the stalking acts; the conduct occurred during an ongoing episode beginning around April 16, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive PRR sentences for one episode | Preston contends the sentences were proper and should remain consecutive. | State recognizes the absence of a bright-line rule and argues the episode-based analysis supports error in consecutive PRR sentencing. | Consecutive PRR sentences were error; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993) (consecutive enhancements prohibited for offenses from same episode)
- Robinson v. State, 829 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (extends Hale to PRR sentences)
- Torbert v. State, 832 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (no bright-line test; analyze nature, time, place, victims)
- Woods v. State, 615 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (considers separate locations and temporal break in episodes)
- Williams v. State, 804 So.2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (crimes' separate elements not controlling for consecutive sentences)
- Eichelberger v. State, 949 So.2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (double jeopardy not controlling where ongoing course of conduct)