STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LESTER HACKLEY, 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 a trial court may correct an illegal sentence by removing the prison releasee reoffender designation when the underlying offense does not qualify for such sentencing.
The State appealed an order granting the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant was initially sentenced as a prison releasee…
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
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Lester Hackley was originally sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) after committing a burglary of a conveyance with an assault. The trial court granted the rule 3.800(a) motion and resentenced Mr. Hackley without the PRR designation 1 because the Florida Supreme Court has determined that burglary of a conveyance with a battery, which is a greater offense than burglary of a conveyance with an assault, does not qualify for PRR sentencing. See State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 213 (Fla.2007); but see Shaw v. State, 26 So.3d 51, 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[W]e recognize the irony that a defendant who commits a battery during the commission of a felony does not qualify as a PRR *328under the statute, but a defendant who commits an assault does.”).
A basic tenet of statutory construction compels a court to interpret a statute so as to avoid a construction that would result in unreasonable, harsh, or absurd consequences. See Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1997). Thus, to avoid the absurd consequence of encouraging a defendant who has already committed burglary with an assault to put the victim in physical danger by committing a battery to avoid the possibility of PRR sentencing, we affirm the trial court’s order. To the extent this decision conflicts with the Fifth District’s decision in Shaw, we certify conflict.
AFFIRMED.
BENTON, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hackley, 95 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2012)…a conveyance with an assault qualifies a defendant for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) under section 775.082(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes (2006). We have for review the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in State v. Hackley, 93 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), which held that burglary of a conveyance with an assault does not qualify for PRR sentencing. The First District certified its decision to be in direct conflict with the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Shaw v.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007)
- Thompson v. State, 695 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1997)
- Shaw v. State, 26 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)