MARTIN HANNA, 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.
Martin Hanna appeals his mandatory minimum sentence under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, challenging whether burglary of an unoccupied dwelling qualified as a triggering offense when he committed the crime. The court vacates the sentence because the statute did not include this offense at the time of the defendant's conduct, and subsequent legislative amendments cannot be applied retroactively.
The court holds that the application of the PRR Act to this case violates ex post facto principles because burglary of an unoccupied dwelling did not qualify as a triggering offense under the PRR Act when the defendant committed his crimes. The 15-year mandatory minimum sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing.
[1] A mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act may be vacated if its application violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States an…
[2] A defendant may reserve the right to appeal the constitutionality of a statute's application as part of a negotiated plea agreement.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“burglary of an unoccupied dwelling did not qualify a defendant for classification as a prison releasee reoffender”
Establishes that under the law at the time the defendant committed his crimes, this offense did not trigger mandatory minimum sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHanna entered a plea of no contest to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft. He agreed to be sentenced under the PRR Act with a 15-year m…
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
PALMER, J.
Martin Hanna (defendant) appeals the mandatory minimum sentence imposed upon him under the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Act (PRR Act). Concluding that the application of the Act to this case violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for resentencing.1
In case number 01-33234, the defendant entered into a negotiated plea of no contest to one count of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and one count of grand theft. He agreed to be sentenced on the burglary charge under the PRR Act which required the trial court to impose a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. In exchange, the State agreed that the defendant reserved his objection that application of the PRR Act in this ease violated the terms of the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions. The trial court accepted the plea agreement with the reservation of the defendant’s right to appeal the ex post facto issue.
The defendant challenges his PRR sentence, claiming that he should not have been designated as a prison releasee reof-fender because at the time he committed his offenses, the PRR Act did not list burglary of an unoccupied dwelling as a qualifying offense. We agree.
The Florida Supreme Court, in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001), held that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling did not qualify a defendant for classification as a prison releasee reoffender. In response to Huggins, the Legislature amended the statute and added burglary of an unoccupied dwelling to the list of qualifying offenses, thus making both burglary of an occupied dwelling and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling qualifying offenses. See Ch. 01-239, § 1, at 2192, Laws of Fla. However, the defendant committed his crimes before those amendments became effective on July 1, 2001, and those amendments are not retroactive. See State v. Eldredge, 801 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Rock v. State, 800 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, the defendant’s 15-year mandatory minimum sentence is stricken.
Sentence AFFIRMED as modified.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . See § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williamson v. State, 988 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…072(9)(a)(3)(b); 810.02(3)(c), (4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). Therefore, it appears that Williamson plead to burglary of an unoccupied structure, which is not a qualifying offense under the PRR statute. See [*1242] § 775.082(9)(a)(l)(q); Hanna v. State, 898 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). An agreement to be sentenced as a PRR on a non-qualifying offense cannot be enforced. Swiggum v. State, 843 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Because it cannot be determined on the record whether Williamson pled to burglary of a…
-
Desmoke v. State, 912 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…United States Constitutions. See Williams v. State, 743 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that it was an ex post facto violation to impose a PRR sentence for offenses committed prior to the effective date of the PRR Act); Hanna v. State, 898 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that the imposition of sentence as a PRR violated ex post facto [*1286] clauses, where, at the time of the commission of the offenses, the PRR Act did not list burglary of an unoccupied dwelling as a qualifying off…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001)
- Carlton Rock v. State, 800 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Joshua Brent LAW v. State, 801 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)