CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, 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.
Christopher Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court reversed, finding that Johnson's conviction for corruption by threat against a public servant does not qualify for Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentencing because the crime can be committed without physical force or violence.
The court held that corruption by threat against a public servant does not qualify for PRR sentencing because the crime can be committed without using or threatening physical force or violence. The court applied the elements-based test from State v. Hearns, requiring courts to look to the elements of the offense rather than the facts of the case. Because the crime only requires proof of harm (including pecuniary harm), not physical force, it falls outside the PRR statute's scope.
[1] A conviction for corruption by threat against a public servant does not qualify for Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentencing if the offense can be committed without th…
[2] When determining whether a felony qualifies for sentencing under a statutory "catch-all" provision involving the use or threat of physical force or violence, courts must…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If an offense may be committed without the use or threat of physical force or violence, then it is not a [felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual].”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from State v. Hearns for determining whether a crime qualifies for PRR sentencing under the catch-all provision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted of corruption by threat against a public servant under Florida Statutes section 838.021(1)(a) and sentenced as a habitual felony…
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 appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. Following concession of error by the State, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Following a trial, the appellant was convicted of corruption by threat against a public servant, a violation of section 838.021(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), and sentenced as an habitual- felony offender (HFO) to 7-years’ imprisonment, with a 5-year minimum mandatory imposed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) statute.1 :He filed a motion to correct illegal sentence alleging that his conviction for corruption by threat against a public servant , does not qualify for PRR sentencing. . .
Section- 775.082(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), defines a Prison Releasee Reoffender as a defendant who commits an enumerated crime within ⅜ years of his or her 'release from prisoh. The crime of corruption by threat against a public servant is not an enumerated felony. However, section 775.082(9)(a)l.o, the so-called “catch-all” provision, allows for PRR sentencing for “[á]ny felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual.” ' Thé Florida Supreme Court has held that when “determining whether a felony qualifies for sentencing as a violent career criminal. (VCC) under a nearly identical catch-all provision, courts must look to the elements of the offense, not the facts of the case. See State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211 (Fla.2007). “If an offense may be committed without the use or threat of physical force or violence, then it is not a [felony which involves the use or-threat of-physical force or violence against an individual].” Id. at 215. The same analysis applies to the PRR statute because both the VCC and PRR statutes apply to convictions which “involve [] the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual.” State v. Hackley, 95 So.3d 92, 95 (Fla.2012).
To prove the crime- of corrupting a public servant-by threat pursuant to; section *1284838.021(1), the State must prove that a defendant “harm[ed] .or threatened] to harm any public servant, his or her immediate family, or any other person with whose welfare the public servant is interested.” § 838.021(l)(a), Fla.- Stat. (2011)(emphasis added). The -legislature has* defined “harm” as used in Chapter 838, Florida Statutes (2011), to mean “pecuniary or' other loss, disadvantage, or injury to- the person affected.” § 838.014(5), Fla. Stat. (2011) (emphasis added). Thus, a defendant need not use or threaten to use physical force or violence in order to violate section 838.021(l)(a). A threat to harm the public servant’s pecuniary interests is, sufficient. Because the crime of corrupting a public servant by threat can be committed without the use or threat of physical force or violence, and it is not an enumerated felony, it does not qualify, for PRR sentencing. Accordingly, we reverse for, the appellant to be resen-tenced without the PRR designation. See Johnson v. State, 985 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
• REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
THOMAS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Hackley, 95 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2012)
- Aahtrell Johnson v. State, 985 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)