JHAPHELIX ROBINSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a prisoner's motion challenging his mandatory minimum life sentence. The court held that the sentence, based on the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) statute, does not violate Apprendi or Alleyne because the defendant's status as a releasee is derived from a prior conviction and thus does not require jury determination.
No, the mandatory minimum life sentence is not illegal. The PRR statute falls under an exception for recidivist statutes, and the fact of being a releasee is derived from a prior conviction, not requiring a jury finding.
[1] Under Apprendi v. …
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“In Lopez, we recognized that Apprendi carved out a specific exception for recidivist statutes like the PRR statute.”
Explains the court's basis for distinguishing the current case from Apprendi.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJhaphelix Robinson, a "prison releasee reoffender" (PRR), challenged his mandatory minimum life sentence, arguing that under Apprendi and Alleyne, the…
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 Apprendi Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. PER CURIAM. Jhaphelix Robinson appeals the postconviction court order dismissing his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion.1 We affirm. 1 Although the postconviction court's order dismissed Robinson's motion, it addressed the merits of his claim.
Robinson filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, insisting that his mandatory minimum life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) is illegal because the PRR statute, section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2010), permits the mandatory minimum portion of a sentence to be enhanced when a trial judge finds that the defendant committed a qualifying offense within three years of being released from a correctional facility. Relying on a trial judge's order from the Orange County Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Robinson insisted that under the Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), any fact that increased the mandatory minimum sentence must be found by a jury.
Accordingly, Robinson argued, his life sentence is illegal.
The trial court did not err in dismissing Robinson's motion. This court squarely rejected Robinson's argument in Lopez v. State, 135 So. 3d 539, 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In Lopez, we recognized that Apprendi carved out a specific exception for recidivist statutes like the PRR statute. This court found that because a defendant's date of release from a prior prison sentence is directly derivative of a prior conviction, it need not be found by a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt in order for a defendant to be subject to a PRR sentence. Id. (citing Calloway v. State, 914 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)).
In affirming the order on appeal, we note that the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court decision relied on by Robinson is not binding on trial courts within this court's jurisdiction and does not serve as a basis for relief. Cf. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1992) ("[I]f the district court of the district in which the trial court is located has decided the issue, the trial court is bound to follow it. Contrarily, as between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district's opinion is merely persuasive." (quoting State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976))).
Here, the postconviction court correctly determined that Lopez was controlling in dismissing Robinson's motion.
Affirmed. CASANUEVA, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013)
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- Lopez v. State, 135 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Calloway v. State, 914 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)