PERCIVAL FERRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges the denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
The appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on count one as both a PRR and an HVFO. A trial court cannot impose equal concurrent PRR and HVFO sentences. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000); Hankins v. State, 886 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Under the holding in Grant, [the defendant] can receive both enhancements to his sentence so long as the habitual offender designation is longer than, not equal to or shorter than, the term required as a prison releasee reoffender”). The proper remedy is for the trial court to strike the HVFO designation for count one. Hankins, 886 So.2d at 1026; Rule v. State, 997 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WOLF, DAVIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Percival Charles Ferris, Jr. v. State, 100 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…relief Appellant obtained as a result of these cases was the removal of the HVFO designation on the aggravated assault count because the trial court had improperly imposed equal concurrent HVFO and PRR sentences on that count.3 See Ferris v. State, 46 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Case No. 1D10-2946). That, however, was only a nominal victory because the overall length of Appellant’s sentence was unchanged and he is still required to serve his sentence day-for-day as a PRR. In his latest posteonviction m…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Maye v. State, 886 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Jeramy Danial Rule v. State, 997 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)