Joseph Gandy v. State

PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct *624 illegal sentence and the order imposing sanctions for frivolous filing. Appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleged illegal consecutive prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentences on counts I and II. Consecutive PRR sentences are not illegal evén if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode. State v. Mosley, 149 So.3d 684, 684 (Fla.2014); Claycomb v. State, 142 So.3d 916, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA) (recognizing that Philmore v. State, 760 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), has been overruled), review denied, No. SC14-1397, 2014 WL 7444595 (Fla. Dec. 29, 2014). Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). Appellant acknowledged in his motion that this issue was argued at sentencing in 2006 and was rejected. The claim is procedurally barred. Even before Mosley, this claim was without merit. Appellant’s burglaries of two separate residences belonging to separate victims were clearly separate criminal episodes. See Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625, 628 (Fla.2007) (concluding that offenses committed at two separate locations occurred in two distinct episodes); Hartman v. State, 92 So.3d 893, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (explaining that the standard for determining whether offenses may be tried together is different from whether offenses occurred in the same criminal episode). The record shows that appellant raised this same issue in a habe-as corpus petition, which the trial court denied in a detailed order dated December 5, 2011. Affirmed. STEVENSON, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.