Weitz v. State, 2D14–5266.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–5266.,2D14–5266. |
| Citation | 196 So.3d 466 (Mem) |
| Parties | Joseph WEITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Nicholas Martino, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
SLEET
, Judge.
Joseph Weitz challenges his convictions and sentences for transmitting material harmful to minors to a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. Weitz was convicted following jury trial, and the trial court sentenced him as an habitual felony offender (HFO) to ten years' prison on the transmitting harmful material count and to a consecutive five-year non-HFO term on the two-way communications device count. We affirm Weitz's conviction for transmitting material harmful to minors to a minor for the reasons set forth by this court in Duclos–Lasnier v. State, 2D15–2415, 2016 WL 3057352 (Fla. 2d DCA May 27, 2016)
, and affirm his conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device without further comment.
However, the trial court erred in running Weitz's non-HFO sentence for unlawful use of a two-way device consecutively to his HFO sentence for transmitting harmful material when both charges arose out of the same criminal episode. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521, 525 (Fla.1993)
. Accordingly, we must reverse Weitz's sentences. We remand with instructions to the trial court to run the sentences concurrently. See
id. at 526 ; Saldana v. State, 139 So.3d 351, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weitz v. State
...a concurrent non–HFO sentence of five years' imprisonment for the unlawful use offense. We affirmed his convictions. See Weitz v. State, 196 So.3d 466, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In ground one of his petition, Mr. Weitz argues that his appellate counsel 229 So.3d 874was ineffective for failing......
-
Weitz v. State, Case No. 2D17–2892
...but reversed his sentences and remanded with instructions to run the sentences concurrently instead of consecutively. Weitz v. State, 196 So.3d 466, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Weitz did not appeal his amended sentence.Weitz then filed a timely rule 3.850 motion on April 6, 2017. That motion wa......