TRAVIS UNDERHILL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2001-04-25
No. 4D99-3517
Farmer, J., Stevenson, J., Gross, J.
782 So. 2d 1002 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2001)

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.

Synopsis

Affirmed conviction for robbery with a firearm but reversed and remanded the sentence because dual designation as both prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender is prohibited when the HFO sentence is not harsher than the PRR sentence.


Holding

Dual designation as both a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender is prohibited where the HFO sentence is not harsher than the PRR sentence.


Headnotes

[1] Dual designation as both a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender is prohibited where the habitual felony offender sentence is not harsher than the priso…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

Travis Underhill was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to life as a prison releasee reoffender with a thirty-year minimum mandatory an…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Travis Underhill was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to life as a prison releasee reoffender, with a thirty-year minimum mandatory, and to life as an habitual felony offender, with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory.1 On appeal, Underhill challenges the trial court’s admission of photographs of the scene of the robbery and contends that his dual designation as both a prison releasee reof-fender (PRR) and an habitual felony offender (HFO) violates double jeopardy principles.

We find no abuse of discretion in the admission of the photographs. As for Underhill’s sentence, while the supreme court has rejected the contention that the dual designation violates double jeopardy principles, 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 before the court for the sentence correction. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur. . The minimum mandatory periods were included as part of the sentences in response to Underhill’s 3.800(b) motion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw