ANTHONY JOSEPH LUNARDI, 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 while the denial of the motion to correct sentence is affirmed, the sentencing documents require clarification.
Anthony J. Lunardi was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced as an habitual felony offender and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR). He file…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony J. Lunardi appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After he was convicted of robbery with a weapon, Lunardi was sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment as an habitual felony offender and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR).1 He then filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, contending that he was erroneously sentenced as both an habitual felony offender and a PRR. Although we conclude Lunardi is not entitled to relief, the sentencing documents are confusing and we remand for clarification.
Robbery with a weapon is a first-degree felony punishable by up to thirty years’ imprisonment. § 812.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Because Lunardi was properly classified as an habitual felony offender, the sentence was increased to a maximum of life. § 775.084(4)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2008). Courts are free to impose PRR and habitual offender sentences for a single offense so long as the habitual offender sentence results in a greater sentence. Austin v. State, 968 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). A PRR sentence serves as a minimum mandatory condition of a defendant’s sentence under the habitual offender laws. State v. Manning, 839 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
In this case, the sentencing documents do not clearly specify that Lunardi’s forty-five-year sentence is as an habitual offender, with the first thirty years being served as a PRR. Such confusion might cause the Department of Corrections to miscalculate Lunardi’s release date. As a result, although we affirm the denial of Lunardi’s motion to correct sentence, on remand, the trial court shall enter a corrected judgment as discussed.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallace v. State, 128 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…r sentence as a habitual offender is shorter than her sentence as a prison release reoffender. We are uncertain whether this sentencing structure might affect her sentencing calculations by the Department of Corrections. See, e.g., Lunardi v. State, 39 So. 3d 364, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). On remand, the trial court shall examine the current sentence and determine what amendment may be permissible to correct the problem. Second, Ms. Wallace claims her lawyer was ineffective because he was ill-prepared. She m…
-
Pollock v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…epartment of Corrections can properly calculate appellant’s prospective release date and his gain time. We remand for the trial court to specify that the first fifteen years of the sentence shall be served as a PRR enhancement. See Lunardi v. State, 39 So. 3d 364, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Affirmed and remanded for correction of the sentence. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Austin v. State, 968 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- State v. Manning, 839 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)