Ellis v. State
135 So. 3d 478
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ellis was convicted in August 1998 of sexual battery by an adult on a child under twelve and burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, and sentenced as a PRR to life for each count.
- He appealed by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the postconviction court denied and the appellate court affirmed.
- The State sought to apply PRR enhancement under 775.082(8)(a)(1)(o) (forcible felony) to the burglary with assault/battery conviction.
- The court applied the same interpretive approach as the catch-all forcible-felony provision in 776.08, focusing on statutory elements rather than proof at trial.
- Ellis contends the burglary with assault/battery cannot support PRR because the offense includes battery, which can be nonforcible (mere touching).
- Ellis also argued the PRR could not be applied under a predicate requiring an occupied dwelling where the jury did not specifically find occupancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRR based on forcible-felony element | Ellis; burglary with assault/battery cannot support PRR. | Ellis; burglary with assault/battery includes battery, thus not forcible felony. | Forcible-felony prong does not support PRR for this conviction. |
| Occupied-dwelling predicate and jury finding | Ellis; no jury finding that the dwelling was occupied. | State; information charged occupied-dwelling burglary; verdict form lacks occupancy term but suffices. | Rule 3.800(a) motion failed to show on-face entitlement; occupancy predicate not shown on record for relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. State, 965 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (guides interpretation of forcible-felony catch-all with 776.08)
- State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211 (Fla.2007) (elements must include conduct described by catch-all; not every force used suffices)
- Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1313 (Fla.1991) (premise that catch-all requires element-based analysis)
- Santiago v. State, 76 So.3d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (applies similar reasoning to PRR occupancy issue)
- Shaw v. State, 26 So.3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (assault defined; relevance to force/violence element)
- Lee v. State, 130 So.3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (harmless-error analysis for lack of explicit verdict on enhancement)
- Knight v. State, 6 So.3d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (harmless-error approach for missing consequential findings)
- Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla.2007) (pleading requirements for Rule 3.800(a) relief)