ROBERT F. MEDINA, 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.
Robert Medina appeals his burglary sentence imposed under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, arguing the Act is unconstitutional and that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling does not qualify as a predicate offense. The Second District affirmed the sentence, holding that occupancy is not an element of burglary of a dwelling under Florida law and therefore burglary of any dwelling, occupied or not, qualifies under the Act.
Burglary of a dwelling, whether occupied or unoccupied, is a qualifying offense under the Act because occupancy is no longer an element of the crime of burglary of a dwelling under Florida law. The Act is constitutional, as previously established in Grant v. State.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act's qualifying offense list, which includes "burglary of an occupied structure or dwelling," is interpreted such that "occupied" modifies…
[2] Burglary of an unoccupied dwelling qualifies as an offense under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“occupancy is no longer an element of the crime of burglary of a dwelling. By amending the statutory definition of "dwelling" to include any structure or conveyance "designed to be occupied by people," the legislature gave equal protection to all dwellings regardless of their occupancy.”
Establishes that occupancy is not required for the crime of burglary of a dwelling under current Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedina was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The evidence established that the dwelling Medi…
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 Elements Of An Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
[*139] PER CURIAM.
Robert F. Medina appeals his sentence for burglary of a dwelling, which the trial court entered pursuant to the Prison Re-leasee Reoffender Act (the Act), section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997). Medina raised two issues, neither of which have merit.
First, Medina argues that the Act is unconstitutional. Recently, this court addressed all of the constitutional challenges that Medina raised and found the Act constitutional. See Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Second, Medina argues that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not a qualifying offense under the Act. Medina points out that the Act lists “burglary of an occupied structure or dwelling” as a qualifying offense. § 775.082(8)(a)1.q., Fla. Stat. (1997). Medina contends that the term “occupied” modifies both structure and dwelling and therefore the only qualifying offense under the Act is burglary of an occupied dwelling. Since the evidence at his trial established that the dwelling he burglarized was unoccupied, Medina contends he should not have been sentenced under the Act.
In Perkins v. State, 682 So. 2d 1083, 1084-85 (Fla.1996), the supreme court stated that occupancy is no longer an element of the crime of burglary of a dwelling. By amending the statutory definition of “dwelling” to include any structure or conveyance “designed to be occupied by people,” the legislature gave equal protection to all dwellings regardless of their occupancy. Id. at 1084. Since occupancy is no longer an element of the offense of burglary of a dwelling, the jury is no longer asked to determine whether a dwelling is occupied or unoccupied when it determines whether burglary of a dwelling occurred. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 195. We fail to see how the occupancy of a dwelling can be an element of the crime for purposes of sentencing when it is not an element of the crime for purposes of conviction. Therefore, we hold that burglary of a dwelling, whether occupied or not, is a qualifying offense under the Act. See State v. Chamberlain, 744 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); State v. White, 736 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
We recognize that the Fourth District recently receded from its prior decisions on this issue. See State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (en banc). The Fourth District now finds this provision of the Act ambiguous and is interpreting it as Medina suggests. Based on the supreme court’s decision in Perkins, we find no ambiguity in this provision of the Act. We, therefore, certify conflict with the Fourth District.
Accordingly, we affirm.
PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medina v. State, 758 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
-
Gibson v. State, 772 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ary of an unoccupied dwelling. He cites State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (en banc), review granted, 761 So. 2d 332 (Fla.2000), to support his argument. However, Huggins conflicts with this court’s precedent. See Medina v. State, 751 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA) (holding Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act applied where dwelling was unoccupied; certifying conflict with Huggins), review granted, 760 So. 2d 947 (Fla.2000); Ramos v. State, 775 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (certifying confl…
-
Ramos v. State, 775 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the fifteen-year sentence of imprisonment imposed in this case for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling pursuant to the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997); Medina v. State, 751 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We certify conflict with State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Houston D. Perkins v. State, 682 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. White, 736 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- State v. Chamberlain, 744 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)