RAYMOND C. HAGINS, 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.
Raymond Hagins appealed his convictions for robbery and petit theft following a jury verdict. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences in part, finding that dual sentencing enhancements (habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender) were improper and that the petit theft sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
The court held that the dual sentencing enhancement was improper under Grant v. State and reversed that portion of the sentence. The court also held that the petit theft sentence was technically illegal because it exceeded the sixty-day statutory maximum for a second-degree misdemeanor, though Hagins was not exposed to additional incarceration.
[1] A defendant cannot be sentenced as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender for the same offense.
[2] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for a misdemeanor offense is illegal, even if the defendant has already served the maximum time.
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“The dual enhancement was improper. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000). The State concedes error on this point.”
Establishes that sentencing as both a habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender violates Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHagins was convicted by jury of robbery and petit theft (second-degree misdemeanor). At sentencing, the State sought a twenty-year sentence as a habit…
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 Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
The public defender brings this appeal on behalf of Raymond C. Hagins pursuant to Anders
following a jury’s verdict of guilt for robbery and petit theft. In the Anders brief, the public defender presents several issues for review by this court and claims that two of the sentencing issues appear to be meritorious.2 The State concedes error in regard to Hagins’ sentences. We affirm Hagins’ convictions without discussion, but reverse the sentences, in part, and remand for resentencing.
Prior to sentencing, the State asked that Hagins be sentenced on his robbery conviction to twenty years as a habitual felony offender and to fifteen years as a prison releasee reoffender. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the court could not sentence Hagins as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender. The trial court imposed a fifteen year term of imprisonment sentencing Hagins as both a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender. The dual enhancement was improper. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000). The State concedes error on this point. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing on Hagins’ robbery conviction.
We note that the written sentence on Hagins’ petit theft conviction reflected that he was sentenced to 391 days’ imprisonment with credit for 391 days’ served. Hagins was charged with and convicted of second-degree misdemeanor petit theft, which carries a maximum sentence of sixty days’ imprisonment. §§ 812.014(3)(a), 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). Although Hagins was not exposed to additional incarceration on his petit theft conviction, the sentence was technically illegal. The State again concedes error. Since the trial court must resentence Hagins on the robbery conviction, upon resentencing the trial court may correct the petit theft sentence.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ„ Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991); State v. Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1974).
. Hagins raises five issues on his own behalf for which he claims reversible error. The pro se issues raised by Hagins lack merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Cullen Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1974)