GEORGE SAUNDERS, 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.
Appellant's sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act was illegal because the jury failed to make an express finding that the burglary was of an occupied structure, as required by law at the time of the offense, and the trial court erred in summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion.
A sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for burglary is illegal if the jury did not make an express finding that the structure was occupied, as required by law at the time of the offense.
[1] A sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for burglary is illegal if the jury did not make an express finding that the structure was occupied, where such findin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant George Saunders was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for burglary of a structure, but the jury made no express finding tha…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, George Saunders, appeals the trial court order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. In this motion, appellant alleged that his sentence under the Prison Releas-ee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(8)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1997), for burglary of a structure was illegal because the jury did not make an express finding that the burglary was of an occupied structure. This is required for sentencing under the Act. See State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001). The amendment which removed the requirement took effect on July 1, 2001. Appellant’s offense was committed prior to that date, such that the amendment does not apply to him. See Ch. 01-239, § 1, at 2192, Laws of Fla. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is available for this challenge as it is apparent on the face of the record that the jury did not make an express finding that the structure was occupied. As such, appellant could not have been legally sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. See West v. State, 818 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Accordingly, as in the West case, the trial court order summarily denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion is reversed, and remanded for the trial court to either grant relief or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute his claim for relief.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 901 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the terms of a negotiated recommendation which was silent as to PRR status. Although there is no opinion discussing whether, or why, Huggins should be applied retroactively, we and other courts have, in fact, done so. See, e.g., Saunders v. State, 823 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (applying Huggins retroactively); West v. State, 818 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (applying Huggins where plea was entered in 1999 and Huggins was not decided until 2001). Applying these authorities dictates that as the defenda…
-
Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…fender (PRR) sentence in count one of 99-18436, wherein he was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, because the jury did not specifically find that the dwelling was occupied. This claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Saunders v. State, 823 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Furthermore, as in Saunders, the commission of the offense in 99-18436 took place before the legislature amended the PRR statute to add burglary of an unoccupied dwelling to the list of offenses qualifying a defendant for a PRR…
-
Clark v. State, 876 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ted on March 19, 2001. The trial court thus applied the amended version of the statute retroactively. The amended version of the statute, however, is not retroactively applicable. West v. State, 818 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Saunders v. State, 823 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Clark’s sentences therefore are reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing. Convictions affirmed, sentences reversed, and case remanded for resentenc-ing. FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001)
- Smith v. State, 818 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)