Carr v. State (673 So. 2d 189, 1996)

PER CURIAM.

The points raised by the defendant attacking his conviction lack merit. However, as the State properly concedes, pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to a consecutive habitual offender sentence. Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but his sentence is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing.