WILLIE JAMES MCCRAY
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.
Willie James McCray appeals one of two prisoner releasee reoffender (PRR) sentences imposed after jury conviction. The appellate court affirmed the PRR sentence for burglary of an occupied conveyance with assault, finding it qualifies under Florida law, but remanded for ministerial correction to delete references to battery.
The court affirmed that burglary of an occupied conveyance with an assault qualifies for PRR punishment under section 775.082(9)(a)1.o., Florida Statutes. However, the court remanded for ministerial correction of the judgment and sentence to delete any reference to battery.
[1] Under the plain language of Florida Statutes section 775.082(9)(a)1.o., burglary of an occupied conveyance with an assault qualifies as a predicate offense for enhanced p…
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 intelligenceMcCray was convicted by jury of burglary of an occupied conveyance with an assault, and also of robbery. The trial court imposed PRR sentences for bot…
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.
Appellant Willie James McCray appeals one of his two prisoner releasee reoffender (“PRR”) sentences1 entered after a jury determined his guilt. We affirm the sentence. As the trial court correctly determined, the jury’s verdict clearly stated appellant was guilty of burglary of an occupied conveyance with an assault, which qualifies for PRR punishment pursuant to section 775.082(9)(a)1.o., Florida Statutes (2023). State v. Hackley, 95 So. 3d 92, 94 (Fla. 2012) (“The plain language of the burglary, assault, and PRR statutes leads us to conclude that burglary of a conveyance with an assault is a qualifying PRR offense.”); see also Shaw v. State, 26 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). However, we remand the case to the trial court for a ministerial correction of the judgment and sentence to delete any reference to battery.
Affirmed. CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. CIKLIN, J., dissents with opinion. CIKLIN, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would reverse and remand for resentencing. Simply stated, I believe it is error to find that this defendant qualified for a PRR sentence for his conviction for burglary with assault or battery. Because burglary with assault or battery can be committed without the threat or use of physical force or violence, the defendant’s conviction did not qualify for enhanced PRR sentencing under the catch-all provision of the PRR statute, section 775.082(9)(a)1.o., Florida Statutes (2020). See Tumblin v. State, 965 So. 2d 354, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Evidence of assault and evidence of physical force or violence was irrelevant to the defendant’s eligibility for a PRR sentence under the present legislative sentencing scheme. See Crosley v. State, 247 So. 3d 69, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Ellis v. State, 135 So. 3d 478, 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Tumblin, 965 So. 2d at 355.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tavorris Tumblin v. State, 965 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Shaw v. State, 26 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Ellis v. State, 135 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Crosley v. State, 247 So. 3d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)