DENNIS HUTCHINS
v.
STATE
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 prison releasee reoffender statute permits imposition of the maximum allowable sentence without increasing the maximum period of incarceration, and the definition of release from a state correctional facility does not apply retroactively to invalidate prior PRR sentences.
[1] Under the prison releasee reoffender statute, the maximum allowable sentence may be imposed without increasing the maximum period of incarceration to which a person may b…
[2] The definition of release from a state correctional facility established in State v. …
Previewing 2 of 2 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“does not increase the maximum period of incarceration to which a person may be sentenced. Rather, under the PRR statute, only the maximum allowable sentence may be imposed.”
Cotto v. State, 139 So. 3d 283, 289 (Fla. 2014) regarding the scope of the prison releasee reoffender statute
Dennis Hutchins was convicted and sentenced under the prison releasee reoffender statute. He appealed his sentence challenging its validity under the …
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 Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Cotto v. State, 139 So. 3d 283, 289 (Fla. 2014) (holding that the prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) statute “does not increase the maximum period of incarceration to which a person may be sentenced. Rather, under the PRR statute, only the maximum allowable sentence may be imposed.”) See also Sims v. State, 286 So. 3d 292, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (holding that State v. Lewars, 259 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 2018) (which held, that under the PRR statute, “release from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections or a private vendor”
does not include a county jail) did not apply retroactively, and thus defendant’s PRR sentences for robbery and burglary were not illegal); Wilson v. State, 279 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (same).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linden v. State, 398 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…enied, No. SC19-2065, 2020 WL 1899575 (Fla. Apr. 16, 2020), we affirmed the denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence and held that Lewars is not retroactive and does not provide any basis for postconviction relief. See also Hutchins v. State, 309 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming with citation to Sims); Herard v. State, 306 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (same). But see Crowell v. State, 371 So. 3d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (Maciver, J., concurring) (disagreeing with district cases, includ…
-
Linden v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Dazarian Cordell Lewars, 259 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 2018)
- Cotto v. State, 139 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2014)
- Sims v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)