NATHANIEL HEATH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2002-04-26
No. 1D99-2114
Booth, J., Webster, J., Lewis, J.
819 So. 2d 817 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed Heath's conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling but vacated his sentence as a prison releasee reoffender because, under State v. Huggins, burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not subject to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act.


Holding

Burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not subject to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, and therefore a sentence imposed under that Act for such an offense must be vacated.


Headnotes

[1] Burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not an offense subject to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act.

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Nathaniel Heath was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender under the Prison Releasee Reoffender…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Our original decision in this case, Heath v. State, 753 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), was reviewed by the supreme court on a certified conflict concerning the applicability of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (Act) to the offense of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and also on a certified question concerning a constitutional challenge to the Act. The supreme court affirmed this Court’s holding in this case that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (Act) does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution. However, the supreme court remanded appellant’s challenge to his sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under the Act for our reconsideration in light of State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001). In Huggins, the court held that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not subject to the Act. Therefore, in light of Huggins, appellant was improperly sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender. Accordingly, we withdraw our March 31, 2000, opinion in this case, affirm appellant’s conviction, vacate the prison releasee reoffender sentence, and remand for re-sentencing.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

BOOTH, WEBSTER, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw