SHANE A. BRADSHAW, 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.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, finding the prison releasee reoffender enhancement improper.
Defendant was convicted of armed burglary and sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender. The offense occurred before a statutory amendment that would …
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
DAVIS, Judge.
Shane A. Bradshaw challenges his conviction and sentence for the offense of armed burglary. We affirm the conviction without comment; however, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Following his conviction at jury trial, Bradshaw was sentenced to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR). The State properly concedes that the enhanced sentence was improper. The offense for which Bradshaw was convicted took place before July 1, 2001, at which time the PRR statute only applied to burglaries of occupied dwellings.1 Since there was no evidence presented below that the dwelling was occupied at the time of Bradshaw’s offense, the sentencing .enhancement did not apply. See Zook v. State, 883 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We therefore reverse Bradshaw’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
Bradshaw also suggests that his sentence is improper based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). However, since we are remanding this matter to the trial court for -resentencing, it would be premature at this juncture to attempt to determine whether the limits established in Blakely apply.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ., concur. . The statute, section 775.082, Florida Statutes (2000), has been modified to apply to both occupied and unoccupied dwellings; however, the modification did not take effect until July 1, 2001.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…claim. The PRR statute was [*107] amended in 2001 so that burglary of a dwelling, whether occupied or unoccupied, is a qualifying offense. Ch. 2001-239, § 1, Laws of Fla.; Tumblin v. State, 965 So. 2d 354, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Bradshaw v. State, 891 So. 2d 1184, 1184 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The statutory version applicable to this defendant is section 775.082(9)(a)1.2., Florida. Statutes (2004). Affirmed.…
-
Eubanks v. State, 917 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…). He contended that his life sentence, received as a prison releasee reoffender,1 is illegal because it was not clear that he was convicted of a burglary of an occupied dwelling, as opposed to an unoccupied dwelling. He relied on Bradshaw v. State, 891 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Because our affirmance appears to create a conflict with Bradshaw, we grant Eubanks’ motion for clarification and write to explain our affirmance. In this case, Eubanks was convicted of armed burglary of a dwelling, a first degr…
Authorities Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Zook v. State, 883 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)