GEORGE HANKINS, 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.
Hankins' 30-year sentence for robbery with a weapon was illegal under Grant v. State because his habitual offender designation did not exceed his prison releasee reoffender designation, requiring the habitual offender designation to be stricken on remand.
A defendant may receive both habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender enhancements only if the habitual offender designation exceeds the prison releasee reoffender designation.
[1] A defendant may receive both habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender sentence enhancements only when the habitual offender designation exceeds the prison release…
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 intelligenceGeorge Hankins was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment with dual habitual offender and prison releasee reoffende…
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 Robbery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
George Hankins appeals his judgment and sentence for robbery with a weapon. The trial court sentenced Mr. Hankins to thirty years’ imprisonment with dual habitual offender and prison releasee reoffender designations. He argues that the sentence imposed is illegal under Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000). The State properly concedes this issue.
During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Hankins filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The trial court mistakenly believed it had sentenced Mr. Hankins to life imprisonment pursuant to his habitual offender status with a thirty-year minimum mandatory prison releas-ee reoffender designation. Accordingly, the trial court denied the motion to correct sentence. Under the holding in Grant, Mr. Han-tóns can receive both enhancements to his sentence so long as the habitual offender designation is longer than, not equal to or shorter than, the term required as a prison releasee reoffender. Because the habitual offender designation did not exceed the prison releasee reoffender designation, the habitual offender designation must be stricken on remand. The judgment and sentence is otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.