Frow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frow v. State

895 So. 2d 539, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3461, 2005 WL 596959

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-4996

StatusPublished

This text of 895 So. 2d 539 (Frow 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

Frow v. State, 895 So. 2d 539, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3461, 2005 WL 596959 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because we conclude that the appellant’s sentence is illegal, we reverse and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing. The appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced as a prison releasee reof-fender to a minimum mandatory 15 years’ imprisonment. The record does not reflect any finding that the dwelling the appellant burglarized was occupied, and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling did not qualify a defendant for prison releasee reoffender sentencing at the time the appellant’s offense was committed. See State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001); Weems v. State, 795 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, the appellant’s prison releasee reoffender sentence is illegal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because we conclude that the appellant’s sentence is illegal, we reverse and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing. The appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced as a prison releasee reof-fender to a minimum mandatory 15 years’ imprisonment. The record does not reflect any finding that the dwelling the appellant burglarized was occupied, and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling did not qualify a defendant for prison releasee reoffender sentencing at the time the appellant’s offense was committed. See State v. Huggins, 802 So.2d 276 (Fla.2001); Weems v. State, 795 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, the appellant’s prison releasee reoffender sentence is illegal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 So. 2d 539, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3461, 2005 WL 596959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frow-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack