KENNETH LEVON WEST, 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.
Kenneth West appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The court reversed because West's burglary of a dwelling conviction did not specify the dwelling was occupied, making him ineligible for the enhanced sentence under the statute as it existed at the time of his crime.
West could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender because his conviction for burglary of a dwelling does not specify occupancy, and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling was not a qualifying offense under the statute when he committed the crime. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to grant relief or provide conclusive documentary evidence that West is not entitled to relief.
[1] A conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling does not qualify for classification as a prison releasee reoffender under the law in effect prior to July 1, 2001.
[2] Amendments to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act that expand qualifying offenses are not retroactive.
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“Because the appellant could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender when his conviction for burglary of a dwelling does not specify that the dwelling was occupied, we reverse and remand to the trial court for relief or for attachments from the record which conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to relief.”
This statement establishes the core holding that West's sentence was illegal because his conviction lacked the occupancy element required at the time of his crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 8, 1999, West pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling and received a fifteen-year sentence as a prison releasee reoffender. The record did …
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the denial of his motion to correct his illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender when his conviction for burglary of a dwelling does not specify that the dwelling was occupied, we reverse and remand to the trial court for relief or for attachments from the record which conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to relief.
On September 8, 1999, the appellant pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling in exchange for a sentence of fifteen years as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to section 775.082(9)(a)(l)(q), Florida Statutes (1999). The record on appeal does not indicate that the dwelling was occupied, and the state does not dispute the appellant’s assertion that “both the movant and the state would agree that the dwelling was not occupied at the time of the offense.” The Florida Supreme Court in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001), held that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling does not qualify one for classification as a prison releasee reoffender. In response to Huggins, the legislature added burglary of an unoccupied dwelling to the list of qualifying offenses, thus making both burglary of an occupied dwelling and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling qualifying offenses. See Ch. 01-239, § 1, at 2192, Laws of Fla. However, the appellant committed the crime before those amendments became effective on July 1, 2001, and those amendments are not retroactive. See State v. Eldredge, 801 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Rock v. State, 800 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Because the appellant’s conviction does not qualify under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, we reverse the order summarily denying the appellant’s motion and remand for the trial court either to grant relief or to attach portions of the record which conclusively show that the appellant is not entitled to relief. We note that if relief is granted, the state will have the choice either to resentence the appellant or to take the appellant to trial, because the appellant’s sentence was negotiated. See Williams v. State, 650 So. 2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001)
- Detrick Williams v. State, 650 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Carlton Rock v. State, 800 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Joshua Brent LAW v. State, 801 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)