Hagans v. State (649 So. 2d 325, 1995)

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellants’ convictions and sentences. The sentencing claim pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), is rejected because the consecutive habitual offender sentences were imposed for crimes which were part of separate criminal episodes. See Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986); Parker v. State, 633 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 980 (Fla.1994).

ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

BENTON, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.

BENTON, Judge,

concurring and dissenting.

I would give the trial judge, who did not have the benefit of Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993) when pronouncing sentence in these cases, the opportunity to decide, in the first instance, whether each of the habitual violent offender sentences imposed consecutively related to a separate criminal episode.