RICHARD WEIRE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
We affirm appellant’s convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon and armed kidnaping but reverse his sentence of life imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffen-der (PRR) with a fifteen year mandatory minimum as a habitual violent felony offender. Once the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant qualifies as a PRR, he or she must be sentenced in accordance with the PRR Act. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000). Consistent with the Legislature’s intent to punish qualifying offenders previously released from prison to 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 with directions to strike that portion of appellant’s sentence imposed under the habitual violent felony statute.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED.
POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…the trial court neither orally pronounced nor made written findings as to which violation the child was found guilty. Aidone v. State, 763 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Second, the evidence consisted only of inadmissible hearsay. Sagner v. State, 776 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (revocation of probation cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone). Third, no foundation was laid for an exception to the hearsay rule. Cf. Russell v. State, 801 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming the revocation of probation…
-
Critsley v. State, 846 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ow all instructions given to him by his probation officer.1 It is undisputed that hearsay evidence, while admissible in probation revocation proceedings, cannot constitute the sole basis for a finding of violation of probation. See Sagner v. State, 776 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Render v. State, 755 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, a revocation can be grounded on hearsay evidence combined with evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Render, 755 So. 2d at 653. In th…
-
Lewis v. State, 995 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ecord exception to the hearsay rule.” Id.; see § 90.803(8), Fla. Stat. (2007). The trial court correctly concluded that the State had failed to adduce non-hearsay evidence sufficient to establish the alleged new law violations. See Sagner v. State, 776 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The trial court erred, however, when it found the defendant had violated probation by failing to report an alleged arrest that was not established by non-hearsay…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Yisrael Yehowshua v. State, 773 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)