JOEY BLOODWORTH, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Bloodworth v. State, 754 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Bloodworth challenges his sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“the Act”) and the habitual violent felony offender statute. The imposition of sentences under both the Act and the habitual violent felony offender statute does not violate principles of double jeopardy, but the imposition of equal concurrent sentences here violates the Act itself. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 657-59 (Fla.2000). Therefore, we quash, in part, the decision of the district court as to Blood-worth’s sentences for counts one and three, and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decisions in Grant; State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000); McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.2000); and Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000). We approve the decision of the district court as to count two.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eli Enrique Valdes v. State, 970 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…tructures.1 THE SENTENCING ISSUE We agree, and the State properly concedes, that the equal concurrent thirty-year sentences as both an habitual violent felony offender and as a prison releasee [*422] reoffender, was error. See Bloodworth v. State, 790 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla.2001) (“The imposition of sentences under both the [Prison Releasee Reoffender] Act and the habitual violent felony offender statute does not violate principles of double jeopardy, but the imposition of equal concurrent sentences here vio…
-
Ducksworth v. State, 834 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…e a greater sentence of incarceration, the trial court lacks the authority to impose an equal sentence under the habitual felony offender statute. See Grant, 770 So. 2d at 659; see also Barge v. State, 789 So. 2d 972 (Fla.2001); Bloodworth v. State, 790 So. 2d 1032 (Fla.2001). Here, while the life sentence imposed as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender is clearly appropriate under the Act and Grant, we conclude that the trial court erred in imposing both a 30-year sentence under the Prison Release Reoffender Ac…
-
Frazier v. State, 877 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…rrently with the PRR sentence. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing two concurrent, equal sentences 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…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- Bloodworth v. State, 754 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)