Echelmeier v. State, 94-02029

Decision Date03 November 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-02029,94-02029
Citation662 So.2d 994
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D2471 Kevin J. ECHELMEIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

J.L. "Ray" LeGrande of LeGrande & LeGrande, P.A., Ft. Myers, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his convictions for numerous charges arising out of a residential burglary and the defendant's subsequent flight from the scene. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences.

On January 6, 1993, an off-duty police officer discovered the defendant burglarizing a neighbor's residence. When the officer investigated and attempted to arrest the defendant, the defendant fled the scene in his car. The officer pursued him. During the high speed chase, the defendant's car struck another car. The occupants of the other car, Mr. and Mrs. Andersen, were en route to purchase a ring for their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Mr. Andersen sustained serious injuries and died ninety-eight days after the accident.

After Mr. Andersen died, a grand jury indictment was returned charging the defendant with first degree felony murder (count I), vehicular homicide (count II), first degree burglary while armed (count III), grand theft (count IV), and resisting an officer with violence (count V). Before trial, the state filed a habitual offender notice pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1993). The jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder (a lesser included offense of count I), vehicular homicide (count II), burglary of a dwelling (a lesser included offense of count III), grand theft (count IV), and resisting an officer without violence (a lesser included offense of count V). The trial court did not adjudicate the defendant guilty of vehicular homicide. He was sentenced to time served on the misdemeanor offense (count V). As to the remaining offenses, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a habitual offender to a term of life in prison for second degree murder, thirty years prison for burglary of a dwelling to be served consecutively to the life sentence, and ten years prison for grand theft to be served concurrently with the burglary sentence.

The defendant asserts that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences because the offenses were all committed during a single criminal episode. In support of this argument, the defendant cites Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), in which the supreme court held that once a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Clevenger v. State, 5D07-451.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 2007
    ...if there was a single criminal episode. Therefore, the question is whether there was a single criminal episode. In Echelmeier v. State, 662 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the court addressed the criteria for determining when there is a single criminal episode. The court wrote that there is n......
  • Williams v. State, 5D01-496.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 18, 2002
    ...There is no bright line test for distinguishing a single criminal episode from separate criminal episodes. See Echelmeier v. State, 662 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Rather, the court must focus on the facts of each case. Id. In making such determinations, courts have considered factors suc......
  • Wilcher v. State, 4D99-2714.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 2001
    ...determining whether a criminal episode is single for purposes of evaluating consecutive enhancement sentences. See Echelmeier v. State, 662 So.2d 994, 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Smith v. State, 650 So.2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the court In determining whether multiple crimes arise out of o......
  • Wallace v. State, 92-00846
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1996
    ...the fact that they occurred in a single episode. See Koon v. State, 640 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Echelmeier v. State, 662 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the imposition of concurrent life Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT