Brown v. State (647 So. 2d 333, 1994)

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the resentencing which followed our decision in Brown v. State, 617 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Because the offenses in question were committed during the same criminal transaction, it was error to impose consecutive rather than concurrent habitual offender sentences. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). The cause is remanded for correction of the sentences accordingly. The defendant need not be present.