Golz v. State

I agree that our mandate in Golz v. State, 674 So.2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (Golz I) compels this result. I am not convinced, however, that a simple shift from consecutive to concurrent habitual offender sentencing is the only appropriate remedy for a Hale sentencing error. See Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993). If the State had requested rehearing in Golz I, I am inclined to believe *211that we could have lawfully vacated the consecutive sentence and authorized the trial court to enter any lawful habitual offender sentence on that count. In that event, the trial court could have sentenced…