PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support one of his four convictions, and he also challenges the imposition of consecutive habitual felony offender sentences. Although the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the appellant correctly notes that the consecutive sentences are contrary to the restrictions on enhanced sentencing as announced in cases such as Hale v. State,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.