
    Bernadette EADDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 94-0631.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Aug. 30, 1995.
    Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, and Certification of Conflict or Question Denied Oct. 13, 1995.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   FARMER, Judge.

As we did in Alvarado v. State, 644 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), we reverse appellant’s enhanced habitual felony offender consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and remand with instructions that the sentences be ordered to run concurrently to the attempted first degree murder sentences. See Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla.1992).

STEVENSON, J., concurs.

STONE, J., dissents with opinion.

STONE, Judge,

dissenting.

I would affirm the sentence on the authority of Gipson v. State, 616 So.2d 992 (Fla.1993). In Gipson, the court approved the imposition of a maximum guideline sentence consecutive to a habitual offender sentence. Here, concurrent habitual offender sentences were imposed to run consecutive to concurrent life sentences. See also Ward v. State, 651 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

The life sentences were within the sentencing guidelines and were imposed on two unrelated attempted murder convictions that were charged in separate and distinct infor-mations. The life sentences were not enhanced by virtue of Appellant’s status as a habitual offender. The habitual offender sentences, as to each case, were for other crimes arising out of the same episode as the attempted murder.

I consider Daniels inapposite. This is not a case involving consecutive habitual offender sentences or consecutive habitual offender and mandatory minimum sentences. Neither does the sentence involve a guidelines departure or double dipping in the scoring.  