SHARON HILL, 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.
Sharon Hill was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender. The appellate court affirmed her conviction but reversed her sentence because the state failed to provide documentary evidence that she was released from prison within three years of committing the new offense, a statutory requirement for enhancing her sentence under the prison releasee reoffender statute.
The court held that the state failed to provide required documentation supporting the allegation that Hill was released from prison within three years of her new offense. Consequently, the five-year prison releasee reoffender sentence was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing, though the trial court may reimpose the enhanced sentence if the state properly presents documentation of qualifying release on remand.
[1] A prison releasee reoffender statute is constitutional.
[2] A defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender if they commit a felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence within three years of release from…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“"Prison releasee reoffender" means any defendant who commits, or attempts to commit ... [a]ny felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual ... within 3 years of being released from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor.”
This quote establishes the statutory definition and requirement that the offense must occur within three years of release from a correctional facility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon Hill was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer. At sentencing, the state alleged she qualified as a prison releasee reoffender base…
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 Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
The appellant, Sharon Hill, challenges her conviction and sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm her conviction without further discussion. However, because the state failed to provide documentation to support the allegation that the appellant was released from prison within three years from the date of this new offense, we reverse her sentence of five years of imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffender and remand for resentencing.
First, appellant claims that the prison releasee reoffender statute is unconstitutional. We note that this argument was rejected and the statute was held to be constitutional in Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Next, appellant argues that the state failed to provide documentation to support the allegation that she was released from prison within three years of her new offense of battery on a law enforcement officer. Section 775.082(9)(a)l., Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), provides: “‘Prison releasee reoffender’ means any defendant who commits, or attempts to commit ... [a]ny felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual ... within 3 years of being released from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor.”
The appellant is correct that the state did not present any documentation supporting the state’s allegation that the appellant was released from prison in March 1996. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel specifically argued that no proof was shown that appellant was released from prison within three years of commission of this new crime and that appellant did not agree that she qualified as a prison releasee reoffender. Additionally, no such documentation appears in the record on appeal.
Since the state did not properly demonstrate that appellant was released from a state correctional facility within three years of the commission of her new offense of battery on a law enforcement officer and therefore qualified as a prison releasee reoffender, we reverse and remand the appellant’s sentence. On remand, the trial court may again impose the prison releas-ee reoffender sentence if the state provides the proper documentation to demonstrate that the appellant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender. See Hamilton v. State, 746 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (allowing trial court on remand to reimpose prison releasee reoffender sentence if state presents evidence that defendant qualifies as such).
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Luman Bodie v. State, 983 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…reoffender. We reverse Bodie’s sentences. On remand, the court may resentence Bodie as a prison releasee reoffender only if the State presents additional evidence that meets its burden of proving he qualifies for such sentencing. See Hill v. State, 753 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Hamilton v. State, 746 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)