Case Name: Bryan FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 237 So. 3d 482
Docket Number: No. 1D17–3298
Parties: Bryan FLOWERS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 237
Pages: 482–482

Head Matter:
Bryan FLOWERS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D17-3298
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
February 23, 2018
Bryan Flowers, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
AFFIRMED . See Hamilton v. State , 996 So.2d 964, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (rejecting defendant's claim that his sentence violates Hale v. State , 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993), where, as here, the sentence "do[es] not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum he could have received if all sentences subject to enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute had been enhanced (but run concurrently), and because his sentence[ ] also do[es] not, in the aggregate, exceed the maximum he could have received if none of his sentences had been enhanced but all had been ordered to run consecutively").
Wetherell, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.