LEONDRAE A. HOBDY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leondrae Hobdy appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court holds that Hobdy was illegally sentenced as both a habitual felony offender (HFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) on the same counts, as Florida law prohibits imposing equal concurrent sentences under both statutes.
The imposition of equal concurrent sentences under both the PRR and HFO statutes violates Florida law. Courts may only deviate from the PRR sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence, and because a life term under HFO is not greater than a life term under PRR, the trial court lacked authority to sentence Hobdy under the HFO statute.
[1] Imposing equal concurrent sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) statute and the Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) statute violates the PRR statute.
[2] A court may deviate from the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentencing scheme only to impose a greater sentence of incarceration.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The "imposition of equal concurrent sentences under the PRR and HFO statutes . . . violates the provisions of the PRR statute."”
Establishes the core legal principle that equal concurrent sentences under both statutes are prohibited
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found Hobdy guilty of four felonies, including burglary of a dwelling while armed with a firearm (first-degree felony punishable by life) and a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(D) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. KHOUZAM, Judge. Leondrae Hobdy appeals the postconviction court's order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Mr. Hobdy was illegally sentenced to equal concurrent sentences as both a habitual
felony offender (HFO) and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), we reverse. A jury found Mr. Hobdy guilty of four felonies, two of which are relevant here: count one, burglary of a dwelling while armed with a firearm (a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment), and count two, armed kidnapping (a life felony punishable by life imprisonment).
On each of these counts, Mr. Hobdy was sentenced to life imprisonment as both an HFO and PRR, with a ten-year minimum mandatory term pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2017) (10-20-Life).
The "imposition of equal concurrent sentences under the PRR and HFO statutes . . . violates the provisions of the PRR statute." McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605, 608 n.4 (Fla. 2007) (citing Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 659 (Fla. 2000)).
Rather, courts are only authorized "to deviate from the prison releasee reoffender sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence of incarceration." Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also § 775.082(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017). "[B]ecause a life term under the habitual felony offender statute is not greater than a life term under the prison releasee reoffender statute, the trial court was without
authority to sentence appellant under the habitual felony offender statute." Walls, 765 So. 2d at 734. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Hobdy's motion and remand with directions to strike the habitual felony offender designations on counts one and two. Id. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- McDONALD v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007)
- Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)