HARRY JOHN HEMMIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2001-02-21
No. 4D99-2674
GUNTHER, STONE, and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
780 So. 2d 942 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions on three counts. We reverse his sentence as to counts I and II and remand for modification of the sentence.

Appellant sentenced as a prison releasee re-offender, may not also be sentenced as a habitual offender where that sentence is not greater than the prison releasee re-offender sentence. Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); § 775.082(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998); Yehowshua v. State, 773 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

GUNTHER, STONE, and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Underhill v. State, 782 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …, see Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), as conceded by the State, such a dual designation is nonetheless prohibited where, as here, the HFO sentence is not harsher than the PRR sentence. See, e.g., Grant, 770 So. 2d at 659; Hemmis v. State, 780 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Yehowshua v. State, 773 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse Underhill’s sentence and remand this case to the trial court so that the HFO portion of the sentence may be stricken. Underhill need not be brought…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw