HORACE BROWN, 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.
Horace Brown appealed his sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender after pleading guilty to multiple charges including drug crimes and battery on a law enforcement officer. The court affirmed most of the sentencing but remanded to strike the habitual offender designations for certain offenses that were improperly sentenced concurrently as both prison releasee reoffender and habitual offender sentences.
Battery on a law enforcement officer qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender offense. The State need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender, with the burden then shifting to the defendant to prove exceptional facts negating that status. Equal, concurrent prison releasee reoffender and habitual offender sentences for the same crimes violate the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act and must be struck.
[1] Battery on a law enforcement officer is a qualifying offense for prison releasee reoffender sentencing.
[2] The State need only show that a defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender by a preponderance of the evidence.
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 intelligence“We agree with the Fifth District that the State need only show that a defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. State, 753 So.2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Once it makes that showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove exceptional facts, such as an overturned conviction, that would negate his status as a prison releasee reoffender.”
Establishes the burden of proof standard for prison releasee reoffender sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown pleaded guilty to numerous charges including drug crimes, battery on a law enforcement officer, obstructing an officer with violence, and posses…
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 Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Horace Brown pleaded guilty to numerous charges, including drug crimes, battery on a law enforcement officer, obstructing an officer with violence and possession of a firearm by a felon. The State sought to have him sentenced as both a prison releasee reoffender1 and a habitual felony offender.2 At the sentencing hearing and on appeal Brown raised several challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act.
His constitutional challenges have been rejected in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), and State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). The Fourth District recently has held that battery on a law enforcement officer is a qualifying offense for prison releasee reoffender sentencing. See Spann v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
We agree, and we reject Brown’s argument on that issue. Brown also contends that the State is required to show he was released from prison because he had served his sentence. Here, the State presented a release affidavit from the Department of Corrections showing Brown’s release date.
We agree with the Fifth District that the State need only show that a defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Once it makes that showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove exceptional facts, such as an overturned conviction, that would negate his status as a prison releas-ee reoffender. Brown did not meet his burden. Still, Brown correctly argues that he was improperly sentenced to equal, concurrent prison releasee reoffender and habitual offender sentences for his crimes of battery on a law enforcement officer and opposing an officer with violence. Our supreme court has held these equal, concurrent sentences violate the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. Grant, 770 So. 2d at 659. We remand with directions to the circuit court to strike Brown’s designations and sentences as a habitual offender for those crimes. In all other respects, we affirm.
FULMER, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., concur. . § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).
. § 775.084(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Cedrick E. Spann v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ulysses Drake, Jr. v. State, 772 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)