JASON ROBERT WATTS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JASON ROBERT WATTS, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
789 So. 2d 547
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
As the State correctly concedes, there was error for the trial court to sentence the defendant to concurrent sentences as both a Prison Releasee Re-offender and a Habitual Felony Offender. Accordingly, the imposition of those sentences must be reversed, with the case being remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing only under the Prison Releasee Re-offender Act. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000).
In view of the failure of appellant to demonstrate any merit in the remaining points raised on appeal, this case is, in all aspects other than that mentioned above, affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for re-sentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frazier v. State, 877 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…in this case, not because such sentencing violated double jeopardy, but because it is not authorized by the Act. Id. at 659; Bloodworth v. State, 790 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla.2001); Martin v. State, 813 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Watts v. State, 789 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Thus, pursuant to Grant, the appellant was properly sentenced for robbery with a firearm, a first degree felony. Under the PRR Act, a first degree felony is punishable by thirty (30) years imprisonment. See § 775.082(8)(a)2.b.,…
-
Smith v. State, 934 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); Martin v. State, 813 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA [*544] 2002) (wherein the State conceded that the imposition of equal concurrent sentences as habitual offender and as a prison releasee reoffender was error); Watts v. State, 789 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)