JIMMIE L. MCDANIEL, 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.
McDaniel appealed his convictions and sentences for burglary, forgery, uttering a forged check, and cocaine possession, challenging his classification as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual offender. The court reversed sentences on two burglary counts of unoccupied structures (ineligible for prison releasee reoffender enhancement) and corrected a sentencing discrepancy between oral and written pronouncements, while upholding the constitutionality of the prison releasee reoffender statute.
The court held that burglary of an unoccupied structure does not qualify for prison releasee reoffender enhancement under § 775.082(9)(a)1, Fla. Stat., which requires burglary of an occupied structure. The written sentence for count 4 must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of ten years. The prison releasee reoffender statute is constitutional and both prison releasee reoffender and habitual offender sentences may be imposed on a single defendant.
[1] A prison releasee reoffender sentence cannot be imposed for the burglary of an unoccupied structure.
[2] A written sentence must be corrected to conform with the trial court's oral pronouncement.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 crime of burglary of an unoccupied structure is not subject to the prison releasee reoffender sanction, as the statute lists burglary of an occupied structure as a qualifying crime.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that only burglary of occupied structures qualifies for prison releasee reoffender enhancement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDaniel pleaded guilty to multiple crimes including burglary, forgery, uttering a forged check, and possession of cocaine. He was sentenced as both a…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Jimmie L. McDaniel timely appeals his convictions and sentences for the crimes of burglary, forgery, uttering a forged check, and possession of cocaine. He was found to be both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual offender for these and other crimes. McDaniel presents three points on appeal.
McDaniel pleaded guilty to several charges against him. He qualified for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual offender. However, McDaniel contends, and the state agrees, that his convictions on counts 3 and 6 in the trial court case 98-18967 were for burglaries of unoccupied structures and he received prison releasee reoffender sentences for these convictions. The crime of burglary of an unoccupied structure is not subject to the prison releasee reoffender sanction, as the statute lists burglary of an occupied structure as a qualifying crime. See § 775.082(9)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998), and State v. White, 736 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
McDaniel also points out that the trial judge orally imposed a ten-year habitual offender sentence for count 4 of trial court case 98-1607, the grand theft conviction, whereas the written sentence reflects a fifteen-year prison sentence. We agree that the written sentence must be corrected to conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Hill v. State, 712 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
McDaniel further contends that the prison releasee reoffender statute is unconstitutional and the trial court erred in sentencing him as both a prison releas-ee reoffender and a habitual felony offender. This court has recently held that the prison releasee reoffender statute is constitutional and that both prison releasee reoffender sentences and habitual felony sentences may be imposed on a single defendant. See Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
We therefore reverse McDaniel’s sentences on counts 3 and 6 in case 98-18967 and remand for resentencing. We also direct that his written sentence be corrected with respect to count 4 in case 98-1607 to conform with the oral sentence of ten years as a habitual offender. Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chambers v. State, 764 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…lent felony offender and a prison releasee reoffender in Count One. We found a similar argument to be meritless in Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Taylor v. State, 755 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accord McDaniel v. State, 751 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. [*659] 2d DCA 1999). However, as in Wright v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D992, — So. 2d —, 2000 WL 424058 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 20, 2000), we acknowledge that our holding on this point conflicts wi…
-
Bryant v. State, 769 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…courts conflict with Adams, and we therefore certify conflict with those cases. See Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D619, — So. 2d —, 2000 WL 256153 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar.8 2000); McDaniel v. State, 751 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), rev. granted, 761 So. 2d 329 (Fla.2000); Alfonso v. State, 761 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED. WARNER, C.J., TAYLOR and HAZ…
-
Ward v. State, 765 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…, 746 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Glave v. State, [*302] 745 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). But see Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Newsome v. State, 2000 WL 256153, — So. 2d - (Fla. 2d DCA Mar.8, 2000); McDaniel v. State, 751 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 751 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, Case No. 00-282, 99-712, 760 So. 2d 947 (Fla. March 4, 2000); Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ,rev. granted, Case No. 99-164, 761 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Apri…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- State v. White, 736 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Boekenoogen v. State, 712 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Angus McCANT v. State, 712 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)