State v. Hackley

93 So. 3d 327, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16532, 2010 WL 4273625
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 29, 2010
DocketNo. 1D10-0159
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 So. 3d 327 (State v. Hackley) 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
State v. Hackley, 93 So. 3d 327, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16532, 2010 WL 4273625 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.

Lester Hackley was originally sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) after committing a burglary of a conveyance with an assault. The trial court granted the rule 3.800(a) motion and resentenced Mr. Hackley without the PRR designation 1 because the Florida Supreme Court has determined that burglary of a conveyance with a battery, which is a greater offense than burglary of a conveyance with an assault, does not qualify for PRR sentencing. See State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 213 (Fla.2007); but see Shaw v. State, 26 So.3d 51, 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[W]e recognize the irony that a defendant who commits a battery during the commission of a felony does not qualify as a PRR [328]*328under the statute, but a defendant who commits an assault does.”).

A basic tenet of statutory construction compels a court to interpret a statute so as to avoid a construction that would result in unreasonable, harsh, or absurd consequences. See Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1997). Thus, to avoid the absurd consequence of encouraging a defendant who has already committed burglary with an assault to put the victim in physical danger by committing a battery to avoid the possibility of PRR sentencing, we affirm the trial court’s order. To the extent this decision conflicts with the Fifth District’s decision in Shaw, we certify conflict.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Hackley
95 So. 3d 92 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Santiago v. State
76 So. 3d 1027 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Wilson v. State
76 So. 3d 332 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Kirby v. State
68 So. 3d 932 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 So. 3d 327, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16532, 2010 WL 4273625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hackley-fladistctapp-2010.