Case Name: Juan Norberto ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-09-06
Citations: 937 So. 2d 754
Docket Number: No. 3D06-537
Parties: Juan Norberto ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 937
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
Juan Norberto ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D06-537.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 6, 2006.
Juan Norberto Espinosa, in proper person.
Charles J. Crist, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Juan Norberto Espinosa appeals an order denying his motion to correct sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
As one of his issues, defendant-appellant Espinosa argues that consecutive sentences should not have been imposed on him. The State filed a response in the trial court where it conceded that the defendant was correct with regard to the sentences imposed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 02-14356. Apparently basing its response on Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), the State said that consecutive sentences should not have been imposed on counts one and two. The State acknowledged that the sentencing order should be corrected so that the sentence on count two would be concurrent with the sentence on count one. Despite this concession, the trial court did not correct the sentencing order, and instead denied the defendant's motion in its totality. We reverse the order now before us and remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing order to make count two of circuit court ease number 02-14356 be concurrent with count one. The defendant need not be present.
We concur with the trial court in the denial of the defendant's remaining claims for relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentencing order.