RICHARD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court reversed defendant's prison releasee reoffender sentence because the statute applies only to releases from Florida Department of Corrections facilities, not out-of-state prisons.
A defendant cannot be sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender under Fla. Stat. § 775.082(9) based on release from a non-Florida correctional facility.
[1] Prison releasee reoffender enhancement under Fla. …
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“because the legislature qualified 'the phrase 'a state correctional facility' with the phrase 'operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor,' we are constrained to hold that the language is limited to a correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections of the State of Florida.”
Court's interpretation of the statutory language limiting prison releasee reoffender enhancement to Florida facilities
Richard Williams was convicted and the trial court imposed a prison releasee reoffender sentence based on his release from a Michigan prison within th…
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 Plain Language Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
We reverse defendant’s sentence as a prison releasee reoffender, pursuant to section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). The trial court imposed this sentenced based on defendant’s release from a Michigan prison within three years of the present conviction. However, as defendant was not released from a Florida prison, the court erred in sentencing defendant as a prison releasee reoffender. As the Fifth District correctly concluded in Damien v. State, 743 So. 2d 611, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), because the legislature qualified “the phrase ‘a state correctional facility’ with the phrase ‘operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor,’ we are constrained to hold that the language is limited to a correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections of the State of Florida.” The language in the statute is clear and unambiguous, and, hence, the court must give the statute its plain and obvious meaning. See McLaughlin v. State, 721 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998).
The state asserts that the legislature’s intent in enacting the prison releasee reof-fender statute was that the statute apply uniformly to persons released from prison in any state. If this is correct, the legislature must alter the statute’s language to achieve this result. In the face of the statute’s clear and unambiguous language, courts cannot accomplish this result by judicial fiat.
Sentence reversed; cause remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McLAUGHLIN v. State, 721 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1998)
- Damien v. State, 743 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)