Bernard Pierre v. State
The Third DCA held that where a defendant is convicted of two offenses from a single criminal episode, and only one is enhanced beyond the statutory maximum under the habitual offender statutes (HFO/HVFO), the trial court may lawfully order the unenhanced sentence on the remaining offense to run consecutively to the enhanced sentence. The court distinguished Hale v. State (which bars consecutive sentencing of two HFO/HVFO-enhanced sentences) and applied Cotto v. State, clarifying that Hale's prohibition does not extend to a combination of one enhanced and one unenhanced sentence. The court also reversed in part, ordering correction of the written sentence to conform to the oral pronouncement by removing an HVFO designation that was not orally pronounced.
Key facts
- Defendant was convicted of two offenses arising from a single criminal episode, with one offense enhanced beyond the statutory maximum under habitual offender/habitual violent felony offender statutes and one offense remaining unenhanced.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences, with the enhanced sentence on one offense running consecutively to the unenhanced sentence on the other offense.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion resolves a recurring and frequently litigated sentencing question regarding the scope of Hale v. State's bar on consecutive habitual-offender sentences, aligning the Third District with the Second and Fifth… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.