JERAMY DANIAL RULE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court reversed sentences in four of seven consolidated cases where trial court improperly imposed equal concurrent prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender designations, violating the PRR Act.
Equal concurrent sentences imposed under both the PRR Act and HFO/HVFO statutes violate express statutory provisions and must be corrected by striking the HFO/HVFO designations.
[1] Imposition of equal concurrent sentences under both the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and habitual felony offender or habitual violent felony offender statutes violates…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The imposition of equal concurrent PRR and HFO or HVFO sentences violates the express provisions of the PRR Act.”
Court's statement of the legal error requiring reversal
Rule entered negotiated pleas in seven consolidated cases and received sentences that included both PRR and HFO or HVFO designations with equal concur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Jeramy Danial Rule seeks review of his sentences for seven consolidated cases in which Rule entered negotiated pleas. Rule argues that the trial court erred in imposing the same terms as both a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) and a habitual felony offender (“HFO”) or habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”). We agree that the court made such an error in four of Rule’s cases and reverse his sentences in these four cases. We affirm the remainder of Rule’s judgments and sentences without comment.
The imposition of equal concurrent PRR and HFO or HVFO sentences violates the express provisions of the PRR Act. Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 659 (Fla.2000). In cases 06-23328, 06-23329, 06-23331, and 06-23334, the court erroneously imposed such equal concurrent PRR and HFO or HVFO sentences. Accordingly, we reverse those sentences with directions for the court to strike the HFO or HVFO designations. See Hankins v. State, 886 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We note that the trial court has already granted this relief in response to Rule’s motion to correct sentencing error; however, that relief is a nullity because it was not granted within sixty days. See Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and VILLANTI, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phelps v. State, 9 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…he received an illegal sentence. Accordingly, we reverse Phelps’ sentence and remand to the trial court with directions that it treat ground one as a motion to correct illegal sentence and strike the habitual offender designation. See Rule v. State, 997 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that concurrent and coterminous habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender sentences violate Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Act; directing the striking of the habitual offender designation). Affirmed in part; reverse…
-
Percival Ferris v. State, 46 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ffender designation is longer than, not equal to or shorter than, the term required as a prison releasee reoffender”). The proper remedy is for the trial court to strike the HVFO designation for count one. Hankins, 886 So. 2d at 1026; Rule v. State, 997 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). REVERSED AND REMANDED. WOLF, DAVIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Maye v. State, 886 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)