Case Name: James VALDES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-09-01
Citations: 765 So. 2d 954
Docket Number: No. 1D99-2056
Parties: James VALDES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 765
Pages: 954–954

Head Matter:
James VALDES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D99-2056.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 1, 2000.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that the consecutive habitual offender sentences were illegal and therefore reverse the final order denying the defendant's postconviction motion. It is clear from the facts recited in the opinion on direct appeal that the defendant's convictions for robbery and throwing a destructive device arose from the same criminal episode. See Valdes v. State, 443 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Therefore, the habitual offender sentences for those offenses must be concurrent and not consecutive. See Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
DAVIS, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.