From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bohler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 5, 2001
795 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 4D99-2071

Opinion filed September 5, 2001

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-22567 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


ON REMAND


Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate in State v. Bohler, 791 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 2001), we have reconsidered our opinion in Bohler v. State, 758 So.2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), in light of Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655 (Fla. 2000), State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla. 2000), McKnight v. State, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 2000), and Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2000). We withdraw our original opinion to the extent that it holds that appellant's equal, concurrent sentences in Counts I, II and III, imposed under both the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, violate double jeopardy. See Grant, 770 So.2d at 659. In Grant, the supreme court concluded:

While imposition of equal concurrent sentences . . . did not violate double jeopardy principles, it did, nonetheless, violate the express provisions of the Act. As recognized by the First District in Walls, 765 So.2d at 734, because "section 775.082(8)(c) only authorizes the court to deviate from the [Act's] sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence of incarceration," a trial court is "without authority to sentence [a defendant to an equal sentence] under the habitual felony offender statute," even where such sentence is imposed concurrently with the PRR sentence. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing two concurrent, equal sentences in this case, not because such sentencing violated double jeopardy, but because it is not authorized by the Act.

Id.

Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to sentence appellant only under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DELL, STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bohler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 5, 2001
795 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Bohler v. State

Case Details

Full title:DEBRA BOHLER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 5, 2001

Citations

795 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)