Sirmans v. State, 92-4259

• Decision Date: 01 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 92-4259,92-4259
• Citation: 638 So.2d 576
• Parties: 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1199 Kenneth SIRMANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 576

638 So.2d 576

19 Fla. L. Weekly D1199

Kenneth SIRMANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-4259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

June 1, 1994.

Rehearings Denied July 14, 1994.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County; Dedee S. Costello, Judge.

Kimberly Fitzpatrick Pell, Panama City, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal from convictions for two counts of grand theft and consecutive 10-year habitual felony offender sentences, appellant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the record satisfies us that no good-faith argument can be made that reversible error occurred regarding either of appellant's convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions without further discussion.

However, subsequent to appellant's sentencing, the supreme court decided that enhanced sentences pursuant to the habitual felony offender law may not be imposed consecutively for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993); Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993). Our review of the record satisfies us that appellant's two grand theft convictions arose out of a single criminal episode. Therefore, it was error to sentence appellant to consecutive habitual felony offender terms. Accordingly, we reverse appellant's sentences, and remand with directions that the habitual felony offender terms be imposed to run concurrently.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.