RONNIE TOLBERT, 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.
Ronnie Tolbert appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that Florida Supreme Court precedent in Grant v. State prohibited his sentencing scheme. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Grant only prohibits dual HFO and PRR designations on the same offense, not on different offenses sentenced together.
Grant does not preclude the imposition of an HFO sentence and a PRR sentence on different offenses even if imposed during the same sentencing hearing. The prohibition in Grant applies only to dual designations on the same offense, not on different offenses.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not preclude the imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence and a prison releasee reoffender sentence on differe…
[2] A negotiated plea agreement does not waive a defendant's right to challenge an illegal sentence.
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“Although Grant precludes the imposition of both an HFO and a PRR designation on the same offense, it does not preclude imposition of an HFO sentence and a PRR sentence on different offenses even if those sentences are imposed during the same sentencing hearing.”
The court's holding distinguishing Grant and establishing that dual designations are only prohibited when imposed on the same offense
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTolbert entered negotiated pleas in three cases in November 1999. In two cases, he received sixty-month sentences as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR…
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
FULMER, Judge.
Ronnie Tolbert appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because we disagree with Tolbert’s argument that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), applies in his ease.
Tolbert entered negotiated pleas and was sentenced in November 1999 in three cases. In cases 98-19392 and 99-18660, Tolbert agreed to a sentence of sixty months’ as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”).1 In case 99-20146, Tolbert agreed to sixty months’ as a habitual felony offender (“HFO”).2 In April 2001, Tol-bert filed his motion to correct sentence citing Grant, which held that equal concurrent sentences with both HFO and PRR designations were not authorized under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997). Tolbert requested the trial court to resen-tence him as an HFO only.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion, at which the State argued that Tolbert was not entitled to relief because the HFO and PRR designations were imposed in separate cases, not the same case as in Grant. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the sentence was lawful.
On appeal, the State has abandoned its original position and now concedes that Tolbert’s sentences are not authorized pursuant to Grant. However, the State asserts that Tolbert is not entitled to relief because he agreed to his sentences pursuant to his negotiated plea.
We reject the argument presented by the State on appeal and we decline to accept the State’s concession that Grant precludes the sentencing scheme under review. We agree with the argument that the State advanced in the trial court and with the trial court’s conclusion that the sentences are lawful. Although Grant precludes the imposition of both an HFO and a PRR designation on the same offense, it does not preclude imposition of an HFO sentence and a PRR sentence on different offenses even if those sentences are imposed during the same sentencing hearing. Therefore, because Tolbert did not receive the dual designations on any single offense, the principle announced in Grant was not violated in this case.
Affirmed.
BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J„ Concur. . § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997), and § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (1999), respectively.
. § 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Theron Martin v. State, 888 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…avated battery with a firearm and aggravated assault. He argues that he cannot be sentenced as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual offender for a single conviction. We conclude that the language Mr. Martin relies on in Tolbert v. State, 827 So. 2d 278 (Fla.2d DCA 2002), and Webster v. State, 837 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), is taken out of context. Because the sentences are authorized by Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), we affirm. The State charged Mr. Martin with attempted first-d…1 / 2
-
Webster v. State, 837 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…itual felony offender (HFO) and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) “for one criminal episode.” Such a sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a) if a defendant received both HFO and PRR designations for the same offense. See Tolbert v. State, 827 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The trial court, in denying Webster’s motion, did not address this claim. However, Webster did not present a facially sufficient claim. A PRR designation is only applicable where the defendant has com [*1081] mitted an enumerated…
-
Hardy James, Jr. v. State, 17 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…hrough 3 — is illegal because it runs concurrent with the thirty-year PRR sentence on count 1. This court has held that PRR and HFO sentences can legally be imposed — even during the same sentencing hearing — for separate offenses. Tolbert v. State, 827 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding although imposition of PRR and HFO designations on the same offense are precluded by the supreme court’s opinion in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), the prohibition does not apply to the sentencing for separate…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)