MARC S. COHEN, 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.
A Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentence for robbery by sudden snatching is unauthorized because the PRR Act only lists 'robbery' and not 'robbery by sudden snatching' as a qualifying offense.
[1] A sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act is unauthorized for the offense of robbery by sudden snatching when the Act enumerates only "robbery" as a…
[2] Robbery and robbery by sudden snatching are distinct offenses for statutory interpretation purposes.
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 intelligenceMarc S. Cohen pleaded no contest to robbery by sudden snatching and received a PRR sentence. He moved to withdraw his plea, arguing the sentence was i…
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 By Sudden Snatching cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Marc S. Cohen challenges the postcon-viction court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea to one count of robbery by sudden snatching. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Cohen pleaded no contest to one count of robbery by sudden snatching in violation of section 812.131(1), Florida Statutes (2002). The trial court sentenced Cohen to five years in prison as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), stating that Cohen qualified for a PRR sentence because the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act identified “robbery” as a qualifying offense. See § 775.082(9)(a)(l)(g), Fla. Stat. (2002).
In his motion, Cohen claims that his PRR sentence for robbery by sudden snatching is illegal. We agree. In Smith v. State, 891 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Fourth District reversed a PRR sentence on a conviction for robbery by sudden snatching, noting that robbery and robbery by sudden snatching are separate offenses. Because the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act refers only to robbery and not also to robbery by sudden snatching, a PRR sentence for the crime of robbery by sudden snatching is unauthorized. Id. at 1133. This court has made the same distinction between these two offenses in the context of section 985.03(48), Florida Statutes (2003), the serious or habitual juvenile offender statute. See T.N. v. State, 896 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that the identification of “robbery” as an enumerated offense in the serious or habitual juvenile offender statute could not be construed to include the offense of “robbery by sudden snatching” because they are two separate offenses prohibited by two separate statutes).
The State’s argument that the legislature intended robbery by sudden snatching to be included as a qualifying offense under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act is unpersuasive given the holdings in Smith and T.N. We therefore reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the postconviction court must permit the State either to agree to Cohen’s resentencing or to withdraw from the ne gotiated plea agreement and proceed to trial.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
SILBERMAN, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 933 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…sting that our affirmance of his PRR sentence for the crime of robbery by sudden snatching suggests we have “overlooked” our prior decision in Smith v. State, 891 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and the Second District’s decision in Cohen v. State, 920 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and that had we considered these decisions, we would have concluded that the jury instructions regarding the offense of robbery by sudden snatching rose to the level of fundamental error. We deny the motion for rehearing, but wri…
-
Fisher v. State, 987 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…judicated Fisher guilty of robbery by sudden snatching. Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor realized that robbery by sudden snatching does not qualify for PRR sentencing and that Fisher’s bargained-for sentence is illegal. See, e.g., Cohen v. State, 920 So. 2d 682, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The State then filed a motion to withdraw from the plea agreement, which the trial court granted, thereby allowing the State to prosecute Fisher for the originally charged offense of robbery. The order granting the motion to…
-
Collier v. State, 128 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…prison releasee reoffender (PRR) for robbery by sudden snatching. Robbery by sudden snatching is not one of the enumerated offenses qualifying a defendant for PRR enhancement. See Smith v. State, 891 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Cohen v. State, 920 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In response to this Court’s order issued pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the state has conceded that the trial court has failed to attach any portion of the record refuting the appellant’s claim.…
Authorities Cited
- Anton Smith v. State, 891 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- T.N. v. State, 896 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)