Witchel v. State (969 So. 2d 1143, 2007)

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant demonstrated no illegality in the trial court’s imposing consecutive sentences in this case, where the sentences were not enhanced. See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2000); § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); § 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (2000); Almendares v. State, 916 So.2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (explaining that generally, judge may sentence defendant either concurrently or consecutively; the exception precluding consecutive sentencing under various enhancement statutes for offenses occurring in a single criminal episode does not apply if the defendant was not sentenced pursuant to a sentencing enhancement statute).

GUNTHER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.