SCOTTY D. BOZEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a Prison Releasee Reoffender sentence for burglary of a dwelling is improper if the dwelling was not occupied at the time of the offense.
Scotty Bozeman pleaded no contest to multiple charges and received Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentences. One burglary charge occurred when PRR s…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Scotty Bozeman pleaded no contest to seventeen counts charged in five cases. Under the agreement, he received three fifteen-year Prison Releasee Reoffender sentences for one count of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon and for two counts of burglary of a dwelling, and five-year sentences for the remaining felony counts, all concurrent. Bozeman’s appellate counsel filed an Anders1 brief suggesting the possibility of sentencing error in connection with the PRR sentences.
The burglary of a dwelling charged in count one of case number CF00-07225 was committed on November 13, 2000, when a PRR sentence could be imposed only if the burgled dwelling was occupied. See State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001). The record contains no evidence that the dwelling was occupied, and the State advises that it does not object to striking the PRR designation as to that count.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to strike the PRR designation from the sentence imposed for count one of case number CF00-07225. Otherwise, we affirm.
STRINGER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 901 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…and Huggins was not decided until 2001). Applying these authorities dictates that as the defendant committed the offense before the effective date of the statutory amendment, July 1, 2001, he is entitled to Huggins relief. See also Bozeman v. State, 846 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This is consistent with a conclusion that Huggins was essentially a clarification of what offenses qualified for the PRR statute since the statute’s inception, and as a clarification of the law, and not a change of law, the decis…
-
Sheriff F. Rashid v. State, 932 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…eby removing it from Anders procedure. However, we acknowledge that the second district entertained a comparable challenge to a PRR sentence in an Anders appeal, reversing and remanding to strike the PRR designation on one count in Bozeman v. State, 846 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). There, the state advised the court that it did not object to striking the PRR designation. Here, the state conceded in its response filed in the trial court that the PRR sentence is illegal on the possession count. We see no re…
-
Arlando Boykin v. State, 164 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…tate has filed no response in this appeal disputing Boykin’s entitlement to relief. Under these circumstances, this is a matter appropriate for treatment as a minor sentencing error without the necessity of additional briefing. See Bozeman v. State, 846 So. 2d 616, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Rashid, 932 So. 2d at 1206. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the limited purpose of striking the PRR designations from the sentences imposed on the counts for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and armed tamp…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001)