Christopher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Christopher v. State

821 So. 2d 1275, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10940, 2002 WL 1769008

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 2002

DocketNo. 2D00-5296

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 821 So. 2d 1275 (Christopher v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christopher v. State, 821 So. 2d 1275, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10940, 2002 WL 1769008 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Matthew Christopher challenges his conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling. We affirm the conviction without comment. We agree with Christopher’s assertion that he should not have been sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (PRRPA), section 775.082(9)(a)(l)(q), Florida Statutes (2000). The information filed against Christopher charged that he burglarized a dwelling. It did not specify that the dwelling was occupied, nor did the jury make a factual determination that the dwelling was occupied when Christopher committed his offense. Under these circumstances, his offense did not qualify for PRRPA sentencing. Weems v. State, 795 So.2d 122, 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also Dudley v. State, 802 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Parker v. State, 799 So.2d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Matthew Christopher challenges his conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling. We affirm the conviction without comment. We agree with Christopher’s assertion that he should not have been sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (PRRPA), section 775.082(9)(a)(l)(q), Florida Statutes (2000). The information filed against Christopher charged that he burglarized a dwelling. It did not specify that the dwelling was occupied, nor did the jury make a factual determination that the dwelling was occupied when Christopher committed his offense. Under these circumstances, his offense did not qualify for PRRPA sentencing. Weems v. State, 795 So.2d 122, 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also Dudley v. State, 802 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Parker v. State, 799 So.2d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 So. 2d 1275, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10940, 2002 WL 1769008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack