RASHAN MAURICE MIKE, 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.
Rashan Mike appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a child, challenging his sentences imposed under both the prison releasee reoffender (PRR) statute and the habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) statute. The court affirms the convictions but reverses and remands the sentence, accepting the state's concession that the trial court erred by imposing equal concurrent life sentences under both statutes when the PRR statute mandates a 30-year sentence for first-degree felonies.
The court held that although a trial court may impose sentences under both the PRR and HVFO statutes for the same offense, the PRR statute does not allow the sentences to be for equal terms. The PRR statute creates a mandatory minimum or sentencing floor, and for first-degree felonies like those at issue, the PRR statute mandates a 30-year sentence, not a life sentence.
[1] A prison re-releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence for a first-degree felony must be a thirty-year term, not life, unless the conviction is for a first-degree felony punishab…
[2] A court may impose sentences under both the prison re-releasee reoffender (PRR) statute and the habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) statute for the same offense.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although a court is permitted to impose sentences under both the PRR and HVFO statutes for the same offense, the PRR statute does not allow the sentences to be for equal terms. Instead, the statute creates a sentencing "floor" or mandatory minimum but allows for a harsher sentence to be imposed under section 775.084, or any other provision of law.”
Establishes that dual sentencing is permissible but sentences must differ and comply with each statute's requirements
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMike was convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a child twelve years of age or older but less than eighteen years of age by a person in a positi…
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 First-Degree Felony Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Rashan Mike appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of sexual battery on a child twelve years of age or older but less than eighteen years of age by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority. He raises four issues on appeal, three of which do not warrant reversal. However, we accept the state’s concession of error as to the sentencing issue, and we reverse the sentence and remand with instructions.
On each count, the trial court sentenced Mike to life in prison under two sentencing statutes: section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2011), also known as the prison re-leasee reoffender statute (PRR), and section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides for enhanced sentences for habitual violent felony offenders (HVFO). Pursuant to the respective statutes, the court also required Mike to serve 100 per*1155cent of his PRR sentences and imposed a mandatory minimum of fifteen years in prison for the HVFO sentences. See §§ 775.082(9)(b), 775.084(4)(b)l, Fla. Stat. (2011). The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Mike argues the sentencing scheme was error for two reasons. First, the PRR statute calls for a thirty-year prison sentence — not a life term — for a first-degree felony. Second, although the court could sentence Mike under both the PRR and HVFO statutes, the PRR statute does not allow the sentences to be for equal terms. The alleged error was preserved for review by Mike’s motion to correct sentencing error, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
' The state correctly concedes error. Although a court is permitted to impose sentences under both the PRR and HVFO statutes for the same offense, the PRR statute does not allow the sentences to be for equal terms. Instead, the statute creates a sentencing “floor” or mandatory minimum but allows for a harsher sentence to be imposed under section 775.084, or any other provision of law. See Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 658-59 (Fla.2000); § 775.082(9)(e), Fla. Stat. (2011).1
Additionally, although the HVFO statute requires a sentence of life in prison for a first-degree felony, the PRR statute provides for a thirty-year sentence for a first-degree felony. See §§ 775.084(4)(b)l., 775.082(9)(a)3.b, Fla. Stat. (2011). Mike was convicted of first-degree felonies under section 794.011(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). This is not a case where the conviction was for a first-degree felony punishable by life, in which case the PRR statute provides for a life sentence. See McDonald v. State, 957 So.2d 605, 612-13 (Fla.2007).
We reverse Mike’s sentence and remand for the trial court to amend the PRR sentences so that they comport with the statute.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- McDONALD v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007)