ALBERT DENNIS, 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 held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence because the offense of burglary of a structure with a battery is not an enumerated offense under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute, and the state cannot supplement the record on appeal.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, may be used to challenge the imposition of a mandatory life sentence as…
[2] Burglary of a structure is not an enumerated offense under the prison releasee reoffender statute unless the offender was armed or the structure was occupied.
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 intelligenceDefendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging a mandatory life sentence imposed under the Prison Releasee Re…
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 Mandatory Life Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Albert Dennis (Defendant) appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the imposition of a mandatory life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), pursuant to section 775.082(9), for the offense of burglary of a structure with a battery.
The trial court's order of denial confirms that the offense was burglary of a structure with a battery, but asserts that this is an enumerated offense set forth in the PRR statute. It is not; burglary of a structure is enumerated only if the offender was armed or the structure was occupied. § 775.082(9)(a)l & (9)(a)l. p & q, Fla. Stat. (2004).
The order also explained the sentence was not illegal because the PRR statute does not require Defendant to serve any additional prison time beyond the statutory maximum. However, this court has held that the PRR designation may be challenged in a rule 3.800(a) motion, even if the sentence was a legal one. See Gorham v. State, 988 So.2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion, where the defendant was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence as a PRR for burglary of a conveyance with an assault or battery, because that offense did not qualify for PRR sentencing, and remanding for de novo resentencing).
In response to this court’s order to show cause, the state has submitted documents that suggest Defendant actually was adjudicated guilty, as charged, of burglary of an occupied structure with a battery. However, it is the trial court that must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim; the state’s attempt to provide them for the first time on appeal is improper.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Defendant’s claim or for any other appropriate relief. See Martone v. State, 922 So.2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.
POLEN, WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humphrey v. State, 239 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Wilden Ortiz Mazariegos v. State (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Gorham v. State, 988 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Martone v. State, 922 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)