EDMOND WHACK, 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.
A defendant cannot be sentenced under both the Habitual Violent Felony Offender Act and the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for the same offense; the state must choose one.
[1] The constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is settled law.
[2] A defendant cannot be sentenced under both the habitual violent felony offender statute and the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for the same offense.
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 intelligenceEdmond Whack was convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of battery. The trial court sentenced him under both the Habitual Violent Felony Off…
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 Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edmond Whack appeals his sentences which were imposed by the trial court after he was found guilty by a jury on two counts of robbery and one count of battery.
Over the objection of defense counsel, the trial court sentenced Mr. Whack to a term of twenty years incarceration as an habitual violent felony offender1 on each of his two robbery convictions and then directed that the first fifteen years of each sentence would be served in accordance with the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.2 Mr. Whack raises two claims of error in relation to these sentences, one of which has merit.
Mr. Whack first argues that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is unconstitutional. However, the Act’s constitutionality was recently upheld in State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000).
He next contends that he could not be sentenced both as an habitual violent felony offender and as a prison releasee reof-fender on each of his robbery convictions. This court has recently held that such sentencing is improper and that the two statutory enhancements merely provide the state with alternative options to seek whichever enhancement will imprison the defendant for the longest term. See Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Accord Willis v. State, 769 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hamilton v. State, 752 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we vacate Mr. Whack’s 15-year prison releasee reoffender sentences while affirming the 20-year habitual violent felony offender sentence. We certify conflict with Alfonso v. State, 761 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), rev. granted, 761 So. 2d 329 (Fla.2000), on the issue of whether a defendant can be sentenced as both an habitual violent felony offender and a prison releasee reoffender. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
THOMPSON, C.J., GRIFFIN, J„ and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur. . See § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1997).
. See § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Vashon Oland Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Carter v. State, 761 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Alfonso v. State, 761 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Hamilton v. State, 752 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Kenney Willis v. State, 769 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)