TERRILL LEE PALMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2000-05-17
No. 1D99-71
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ„ CONCUR.
790 So. 2d 444 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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

Terrill Lee Palmore appealed his life sentence imposed under Florida's prison releasee reoffender statute, challenging it on constitutional grounds and contending the trial court improperly imposed dual sentences under both the prison releasee reoffender and violent career criminal statutes. The court rejected the constitutional challenges but agreed that dual sentencing was improper, quashing the violent career criminal designation while affirming the prison releasee reoffender sentence.


Holding

The court rejected challenges that the prison releasee reoffender statute violates separation of powers, equal protection, or vagueness doctrines, and rejected the ex post facto challenge because the crime occurred after the statute's effective date. However, the court held that where a defendant qualifies as a prison releasee reoffender, the trial court cannot impose an additional sentence under the violent career criminal statute unless it results in a greater sentence of incarceration, which is impossible when both statutes authorize life sentences.


Headnotes

[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act is not void for vagueness, nor does it violate equal protection or the single subject rule.

[2] A defendant who commits a crime after the effective date of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act is subject to its provisions, even if released from prison befor…

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

Key Quotes

“Since he was subject to sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender, however, he was not subject to sentencing as a violent career criminal because section 775.084 does not authorize a sentence longer than the life sentence section 775.082(8)(c) authorizes.”

Establishes that dual sentencing is improper when both statutes authorize the same length sentence.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Palmore was released from prison on March 7, 1997. The prison releasee reoffender punishment act took effect on May 30, 1997. Palmore committed robber…

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
BENTON, J.

BENTON, J.

Terrill Lee Palmore appeals his sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of early release. On various grounds, he challenges his sentence as unconstitutional insofar as it was imposed under section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997). We reject these challenges. He also contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him both as a prison releasee reoffender under section 775.082(8) and as a violent career criminal under section 775.084, for the same offense. We quash the portion of the sentence predicated on the trial court’s determination of violent career criminal status and affirm the sentence as modified.

We reject the contentions that the prison releasee reoffender provisions violate constitutional separation of powers requirements and equal protection guaranties, that they are void for vagueness, and that the law enacting them violated the single subject rule. See generally Jackson v. State, 744 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding single subject rule not violated); Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA) (holding statute not void for vagueness and not violative of equal protection), review granted, 740 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1999). We do, however, certify the same question of great public importance certified in Woods:

DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE RE OFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Woods, 740 So. 2d at 25. Mr. Palmore also mounts an ex post facto challenge, pointing out that he was released from prison on March 7, 1997, before the prison releasee reoffender punishment act took effect on May 30, 1997. See Ch. 97-239, § 7, at 4404, Laws of Fla. But he committed robbery with a firearm on January 24, 1998, after the effective date of the act, and is therefore properly subject to the act. See Chambers v. State, 752 So. 2d 64, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Gonzales v. State, 762 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Arnold v. State, 755 So. 2d 696, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gray v. State, 742 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1999); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999). See also Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

In pronouncing sentence, the trial court committed Mr. Palmore “to the custody of the Department of Corrections to serve a term of life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender and as a violent career criminal.” Since he was subject to sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender, however, he was not subject to sentencing as a violent career criminal because section 775.084 does not authorize a sentence longer than the life sentence section 775.082(8)(c) authorizes. While the statute does authorize imposition of “a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law, pursuant to s. 775.084 or any other provision of law,” § 775.082(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997), it does not authorize imposition of a sentence under another provision that does not result in a greater sentence of incarceration. See Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“Because section 775.082(8)(c) only authorizes the court to deviate from the prison releasee reoffen-der sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence of incarceration, and because a life term under the habitual felony offender statute is not greater than a life term under the prison releasee reoffender statute, the trial court was without authority to sentence appellant under the habitual felony offender statute.”); Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (stating that, “statute allows the State to seek whichever sentence may imprison the defendant longer.”); Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same); Gordon v. State, 745 So. 2d 1016, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same). See also Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (affirming thirty year sentence under habitual felony offender provisions where prison releasee reoffender statute prescribed fifteen year sentence). The sentence Mr. Palmore received must be modified by deleting the phrase “as a violent career criminal.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ„ CONCUR.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Pleas v. State, 41 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
    …pediment to applying the statute to those defendants whose prison terms ended prior to its effective date, so long as the new crime occurred after the statute became effective. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 661-62 (Fla.2000); Palmore v. State, 790 So. 2d 444, 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Mobley v. State, 765 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Again, even the [*982] slightest of research would have shown Appellant that his facial challenge would be unsuccessful. Similarly meritless is Appellant’s “as appl…
  • Dolansky v. State, 964 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
    …statute is not greater than a life term under the PRR statute, the trial court was without authority to sentence Appellant as an HFO to a term less than or equal to that required under the PRR statute. See Walls, 765 So. 2d at 734; Palmore v. State, 790 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing HFO sentence where defendant sentenced as PRR to life and HFO statute does not authorize sentence longer than life). Appellant’s sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to strike that portion of Appellant’s…

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw