Case Name: James SPRATLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-03-27
Citations: 672 So. 2d 54
Docket Number: No. 95-2519
Parties: James SPRATLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 672
Pages: 54–55

Head Matter:
James SPRATLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-2519.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 27, 1996.
Rehearing Denied May 10, 1996.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Carl L. McGinnes, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We affirm as to one without discussion. The other issue is whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual offender sentences for the two burglary offenses. We find no error. In Woods v. State, 615 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the court held that in order to determine whether "two separate offenses have occurred, the court must consider whether separate victims are involved, whether the crimes occur in separate locations, and whether there has been a temporal break between the incidents."
In the case at bar, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for two separate burglaries. Two separate victims were involved, and two separate residences were involved (separate units of a duplex). The trial court acted within its discretion in determining that two separate criminal episodes occurred. The consecutive habitual offender sentences are affirmed.
BOOTH, J., concurs.
BENTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with written opinion.