YISRAEL YEHOWSHUA A/K/A KENNETH N. WASHINGTON, 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.
The court held that a trial court cannot impose both habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender sentences when the sentences are of equal length, as it is not authorized by the PRR Act.
Appellant was convicted of burglary with battery and indecent assault. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as both a habitual felony offender (HFO) …
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 (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Yisrael Yehowshua (Yehow-. shua), was convicted of burglary with a battery and indecent assault of a child under sixteen year’s of age. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment as both a habitual felony offender (HFO) and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR). We affirm his convictions, but reverse his sentence imposing both the HFO and PRR sentences.
In Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 658 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court found that “the imposition of an applicable longer, concurrent term of imprisonment with a PRR mandatory minimum sentence does not violate double jeopardy.” However, the Grant court cited with approval Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), where the First District found that the trial court erred in entering two concurrent, equal sentences. The First District found there was error not because such sentencing violated double jeopardy, but because it was not authorized by the PRR Act.
Because section 775.082(8)(c) only authorizes the court to deviate from the prison releasee reoffender sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence of incarceration, and because a fife term under the habitual felony offender statute is not greater than a life term under the prison releasee reoffender statute, the trial court was without authority to sentence appellant under the habitual felony offender statute.
Id. at 734.
Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in sentencing Yehowshua as both an HFO and a PRR, and reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to sentence him only as a PRR. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
GUNTHER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 780 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…sentencing scheme is authorized so that a greater sentence of incarceration may be imposed, but a trial court is without authority to sentence a defendant, as here, to an equal sentence under the habitual felony offender statute. Yehowshua v. State, 773 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Because life imprisonment plus 15 years under the habitual felony offender statute is not great [*281] er than a life term plus 15 years under the PRR statute, the trial court was not authorized to sentence Miller under both. Ac…
-
Shelton Bromell v. State, 777 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…oth the Violent Career Criminal statute and the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute. On remand, the trial court should sentence him only under the Prison Releasee Reof-fender statute. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); Yehowshua v. State, 773 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED. WARNER, C.J., KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Weire v. State, 776 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…the fullest extent of the law, the trial court may deviate from the PRR Act only to impose “a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law .” Id. at 658 (citing section 775.082(8)(c), Florida Statutes (1997)). See also Yehowshua v. State, 773 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Because the appellant herein qualifies as a PRR, the trial court must impose the harsher life sentence pursuant to the PRR Act. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s life sentence as a PRR but remand this case to the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)