Mosley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mosley v. State

112 So. 3d 538, 2013 WL 1092235, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4229

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 2013

DocketNo. 1D11-4936

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 So. 3d 538 (Mosley 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

Mosley v. State, 112 So. 3d 538, 2013 WL 1092235, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4229 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his convictions and sentences for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation and Aggravated Stalking. We affirm his convictions without further comment. We, however, agree with Appellant that it was error to impose consecutive sentences for Count I, Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, and Count II, Aggravated Stalking. Appellant was sentenced as a prison release reoffender (PRR) and designated a sexual predator. PRR sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode. See Preston v. State, — So.3d -, -(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Robinson v. State, 829 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because we conclude that Count I and Count II occurred during the same criminal episode, Appellant’s consecutive PRR sentences were error.

Upon resentencing, the trial court may remove the PRR designation on one of the counts and still impose consecutive sentences. See Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625, 628-29 (Fla.2007) (holding that Criminal Punishment Code sentence can run consecutive to PRR sentence even though offenses arose from same criminal episode). Although not argued by the State, we recognize an apparent conflict between our opinion in Preston and the Fifth District’s opinion in Young v. State, 37 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), which in analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves, held that consecutive PRR sentences are not prohibited.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his convictions and sentences for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation and Aggravated Stalking. We affirm his convictions without further comment. We, however, agree with Appellant that it was error to impose consecutive sentences for Count I, Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, and Count II, Aggravated Stalking. Appellant was sentenced as a prison release reoffender (PRR) and designated a sexual predator. PRR sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode. See Preston v. State, — So.3d -, -(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Robinson v. State, 829 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because we conclude that Count I and Count II occurred during the same criminal episode, Appellant’s consecutive PRR sentences were error.

Upon resentencing, the trial court may remove the PRR designation on one of the counts and still impose consecutive sentences. See Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625, 628-29 (Fla.2007) (holding that Criminal Punishment Code sentence can run consecutive to PRR sentence even though offenses arose from same criminal episode). Although not argued by the State, we recognize an apparent conflict between our opinion in Preston and the Fifth District’s opinion in Young v. State, 37 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), which in analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves, held that consecutive PRR sentences are not prohibited.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 3d 538, 2013 WL 1092235, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack