From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weitz v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
Jun 24, 2016
196 So. 3d 466 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Summary

relying on Hale and Saldana to hold that "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"

Summary of this case from Thomas v. State

Opinion

No. 2D14–5266.

06-24-2016

Joseph WEITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

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.


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.

Opinion

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 and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Weitz v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
Jun 24, 2016
196 So. 3d 466 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

relying on Hale and Saldana to hold that "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"

Summary of this case from Thomas v. State
Case details for

Weitz v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH WEITZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

Date published: Jun 24, 2016

Citations

196 So. 3d 466 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

Weitz v. State

We affirmed his convictions. See Weitz v. State, 196 So.3d 466, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In ground one of his…

Weitz v. State

On direct appeal, this court affirmed Weitz's convictions but reversed his sentences and remanded with…