FRANK ANDRE MOSLEY, 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.
Affirmed convictions for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation and Aggravated Stalking, but reversed consecutive PRR sentences imposed for crimes committed during a single criminal episode and remanded for resentencing.
Prison release reoffender sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode.
[1] Prison release reoffender sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the underlying crimes were committed during a single criminal episode, but the trial cour…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation and Aggravated Stalking, sentenced as a prison release reoffender, and designated a sexual …
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 Aggravated Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals his convictions and sentences for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation and Aggravated Stalking. We affirm his convictions without further comment. We, however, agree with Appellant that it was error to impose consecutive sentences for Count I, Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, and Count II, Aggravated Stalking. Appellant was sentenced as a prison release reoffender (PRR) and designated a sexual predator. PRR sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode. See Preston v. State, — So.3d -, -(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Robinson v. State, 829 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because we conclude that Count I and Count II occurred during the same criminal episode, Appellant’s consecutive PRR sentences were error.
Upon resentencing, the trial court may remove the PRR designation on one of the counts and still impose consecutive sentences. See Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625, 628-29 (Fla.2007) (holding that Criminal Punishment Code sentence can run consecutive to PRR sentence even though offenses arose from same criminal episode). Although not argued by the State, we recognize an apparent conflict between our opinion in Preston and the Fifth District’s opinion in Young v. State, 37 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), which in analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves, held that consecutive PRR sentences are not prohibited.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.
WOLF, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mosley, 149 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 2014)
-
Claycomb v. State, 142 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
-
Frank A.L. Mosley v. State, 141 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. State, 957 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2007)
- Robinson v. State, 829 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Parker v. Enter. Leasing Co. of Orlando, 37 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Young v. State, 37 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)