Hemphill v. State

PER CURIAM. The consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed in Counts I and II are impermissible under Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), therefore we REVERSE and REMAND for resentenc-ing on those two counts. Resentencing may include restructuring to provide for a proba [302] tionary period, see Jordan v. State, 568 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1990). BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.