DEBRA BOHLER, 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.
On remand following Florida Supreme Court guidance, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed its prior holding that concurrent sentences under both the Habitual Felony Offender Act and Prison Releasee Reoffender Act violated double jeopardy. The court held that while such concurrent sentences do not violate double jeopardy, they violate the express provisions of the sentencing statute, and remanded for resentencing under the PRR Act alone.
Equal concurrent sentences under both statutes do not violate double jeopardy principles, but such sentences violate the express provisions of the Habitual Felony Offender Act because section 775.082(8)(e) authorizes courts only to deviate from the Act's sentencing scheme by imposing a greater sentence, not an equal one. Therefore, the trial court lacked authority to impose concurrent equal sentences under both statutes.
[1] Imposing equal concurrent sentences under both the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate double jeopardy principles.
[2] A trial court is without authority to sentence a defendant under the Habitual Felony Offender statute when imposing a concurrent sentence with a Prison Releasee Reoffende…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“While imposition of equal concurrent sentences ... did not violate double jeopardy principles, it did, nonetheless, violate the express provisions of the Act.”
Establishes the core holding: concurrent equal sentences are statutorily prohibited, not constitutionally prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDebra Bohler was sentenced to equal concurrent sentences on Counts I, II, and III under both the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the Prison Releasee …
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
On Remand
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate in State v. Bohler, 791 So. 2d 1084 (Fla.2001), we have reconsidered our opinion in Bohler v. State, 758 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), in light of Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), 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 withdraw our original opinion to the extent that it holds that appellant’s equal, concurrent sentences in Counts I, II and III, imposed under both the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, violate double jeopardy. See Grant, 770 So. 2d at 659. In Grant, the supreme court concluded:
While imposition of equal concurrent sentences ... did not violate double jeopardy principles, it did, nonetheless, violate the express provisions of the Act. As recognized by the First District in Walls, 765 So. 2d at 734, because “section 775.082(8)(e) only authorizes the court to deviate from the [Act’s] sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence of incarceration,” a trial court is “without authority to sentence [a defendant to an equal sentence] under the habitual felony offender statute,” even where such sentence is imposed concurrently 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.
Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to sentence appellant only under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
DELL, STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
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)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- Ellison v. State, 758 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Bohler v. State, 758 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Hansbrough v. State, 791 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2001)