Willis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Willis v. State

782 So. 2d 445, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2471, 2001 WL 219310

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2001

DocketNo. 4D99-2948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 782 So. 2d 445 (Willis 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

Willis v. State, 782 So. 2d 445, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2471, 2001 WL 219310 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for robbery with a firearm and attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. As to each crime, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffender, pursuant to section 775.082(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2000), and to a minimum fifteen year sentence as a violent habitual offender. Both sentences also identified appellant as an habitual felony offender. Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 659 (Fla.2000), held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“PRRA”) only allows a concurrent habitual felony offender sentence that is greater than the prison releasee reoffender sentence. Since the minimum sentences imposed under the PRRA are for life imprisonment, we reverse that portion of the sentences pertaining to appellant’s violent habitual offender and habitual felony offender status. We also remand for correction of the clerical error on the sentencing guidelines worksheet indicating that appellant was a violent career criminal. The trial court never indicated in its oral pronouncements or written sentences that appellant was being sentenced as a violent career criminal.

STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for robbery with a firearm and attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. As to each crime, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffender, pursuant to section 775.082(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2000), and to a minimum fifteen year sentence as a violent habitual offender. Both sentences also identified appellant as an habitual felony offender. Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 659 (Fla.2000), held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“PRRA”) only allows a concurrent habitual felony offender sentence that is greater than the prison releasee reoffender sentence. Since the minimum sentences imposed under the PRRA are for life imprisonment, we reverse that portion of the sentences pertaining to appellant’s violent habitual offender and habitual felony offender status. We also remand for correction of the clerical error on the sentencing guidelines worksheet indicating that appellant was a violent career criminal. The trial court never indicated in its oral pronouncements or written sentences that appellant was being sentenced as a violent career criminal.

STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 So. 2d 445, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2471, 2001 WL 219310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack