Walker v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseAppellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive sentences of 300 months’ imprisonment for the first count and 300 months’ suspended imposition of sentence for the second count. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, alleging that his sentence was illegal because a suspended sentence imposed with a term of imprisonment for a different crime must run concurrently. The Supreme Court agreed with Appellant and reversed, holding that the trial court did not have the authority to order that the sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment run consecutively to the 300 months’ suspended imposition of sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.