JESSIE BENJAMIN POLLOCK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting collateral crime evidence and Pollock was not entitled to a twelve-person jury, but the court must clarify that the first fifteen years of the robbery sentence shall be served as a Prison Releasee Reoffender enhancement.
[1] When a trial court imposes concurrent sentences involving multiple enhancements, the court must specify the order in which enhanced sentence components shall be served to…
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 intelligencePollock was convicted of robbery, grand theft, and driving with a revoked license as a habitual traffic offender. The trial court imposed a twenty-fiv…
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 Driving While License Revoked cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562020CF001773A.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jaclyn Lopez, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for robbery, grand theft, and driving with a revoked license as a habitual traffic offender. He raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting collateral crime evidence; (2) whether he was entitled to a twelve-person jury pursuant to the Constitution; and (3) whether the court erred in failing to correct his sentence to designate when the portion of his sentence as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) should be served. We affirm on the first two issues.1
2
As to his sentence on the robbery count, the court imposed both the Habitual Felony Offender and PRR enhancements, providing for a sentence of twenty-five years, with credit for time served. While the PRR sentence was a mandatory fifteen years, the court did not designate when that sentence should be served. Appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence, but the motion was deemed denied when the trial court failed to rule on it. While we affirm the sentence, the sentence needs clarification so that the Department of Corrections can properly calculate appellant’s prospective release date and his gain time. We remand for the trial court to specify that the first fifteen years of the sentence shall be served as a PRR enhancement. See Lunardi v. State, 39 So. 3d 364, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
Affirmed and remanded for correction of the sentence. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- Lunardi v. State, 39 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)