MURPHY SINCLAIR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Murphy Sinclair appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that concurrent habitual felony offender (HFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentences violated double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that such concurrent sentences are permissible when the HFO sentence exceeds the PRR sentence.
Concurrent HFO and PRR sentences do not violate double jeopardy rights or the PRR Act when the HFO sentence exceeds the PRR sentence. The PRR Act permits a trial court to impose both sentences when a defendant qualifies under both statutes, with the PRR sentence operating as a mandatory minimum.
[1] Sentencing a defendant as both a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) and a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) for the same offense does not violate the constitutional protection…
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act permits a court to impose a Habitual Felony Offender sentence on a defendant who qualifies under both statutes, without requiring a cho…
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“sentencing of a defendant as both a PRR and a HFO does not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy”
Establishes that concurrent HFO and PRR sentences do not violate double jeopardy protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury trial, Sinclair was found guilty of resisting an officer without violence and burglary of an occupied dwelling. The trial court sente…
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 Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
Murphy Sinclair appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Sinclair contends that the trial court violated the double jeopardy clause when it sentenced him to concurrent habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender sentences. We disagree and affirm.
Following a jury trial, the jury found Sinclair guilty of resisting an officer without violence and burglary of an occupied dwelling. The court sentenced him to twenty years as a habitual felony offender (“HFO”) with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”).
Sinclair’s claim cannot be sustained in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla.2000). In Grant, the defendant argued that his concurrent fifteen-year HFO and PRR sentences for sexual battery violated his double jeopardy rights. The Florida Supreme Court rejected Grant’s double jeopardy argument. See also Pacheco v. State, 784 So.2d 459, 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (sentencing of a defendant as both a PRR and a HFO does not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy).
*575However, the Florida Supreme Court in Grant concluded that the sentences violated section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1997), the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“PRR Act”), because the concurrent HFO and PRR sentences were equal in length. The Supreme Court observed that, under the PRR Act, “ ‘[n]othing in this subsection shall prevent a court from imposing a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law, pursuant to s. 775.084 [the HFO statute], or any other provision of law.’” Grant, 770 So.2d at 658 (citing § 775.082(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997), now § 775.082(9)(c)). The Supreme Court found that “this subsection allows a trial court to impose an HFO sentence on a PRR when the defendant qualifies under both statutes. It does not require a trial court to choose between one or the other. When a defendant receives a sentence like the one in this case, the PRR Act operates as a mandatory minimum sentence.” Grant, 770 So.2d at 658.
Consequently, concurrent HFO and PRR sentences for the same offense are permissible when the incarceration period of the HFO sentence exceeds the PRR sentence. Here, the court sentenced Sinclair to twenty years as a HFO and fifteen years as a PRR. Therefore, the trial court did not violate the PRR Act.
Further, this Court previously held that Sinclair’s twenty-year sentence as a HFO and fifteen-year sentence as a PRR was in fact a legal sentence. See Sinclair v. State, 994 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jurez Roshae Williams v. State, 129 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…the incarcera-tive portions of the sentences were the same and stating that “a concurrent HFO sentence which imposes a period of incarceration equal to or less than the PRR mandatory minimum constitutes an illegal sentence”); cf. Sinclair v. State, 65 So. 3d 573, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming sentence of twenty years as an HFO and concurrent fifteen years as a PRR because “the incarceration period of the HFO sentence exceeds the PRR sentence”). Here, as in Johnson and Michel, the trial court imposed co…
-
Newton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas County) (M.D. Fla. 2019)…tat. (2012). Concurrent HFO and PRR sentences for the same offense are permissible when the incarceration period of the HFO sentence exceeds the PRR sentence. See Williams v. State, 129 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Sinclair v. State, 65 So. 3d 573, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming sentence of twenty years as an HFO and concurrent fifteen years as a PRR because “the incarceration period of the HFO sentence exceeds the PRR sentence[]”). Moreover, concurrent HFO and PRR sentences…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Pacheco v. State, 784 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Murphy Sinclair v. State, 994 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Norberto Herrera v. State, 994 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)