From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trotter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 17, 1999
744 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 98-03362.

Opinion filed November 17, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Chet Tharpe, Judge.

Matthew J. Wells, Tampa, for Appellant.

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


In 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.

We 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).

The 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.

Affirmed in part, remanded with directions.

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


Summaries of

Trotter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 17, 1999
744 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

Trotter v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT EARL TROTTER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 17, 1999

Citations

744 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Wilcher v. State

However, the crimes which occurred at the victim's residence were clearly separated in time and place from…

Stevens v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

The appeal of the new judgment concluded on November 17, 1999. Trotter v. State, 744 So.2d 583 (2DCA 1999)…