Josue Cotto v. State of Florida
139 So. 3d 283
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Cotto was prison releasee reoffender (PRR) for aggravated assault with a firearm and received five years.
- He also received habitual felony offender (HFO) enhancements: ten years for concealed firearm and thirty years for possession of a firearm by a felon, total 35 years.
- HVFO/HFO sentences arose from a single December 1, 2002 criminal episode in which multiple offenses occurred.
- Third District affirmed the sentence; Hale v. State was used to address consecutive sentencing for offenses arising from a single episode.
- Cotto sought review arguing Hale barred consecutive sentencing; Third District certified conflict with Williams v. State, which took a different view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Hale prohibit consecutive sentencing when PRR and HVFO apply to a single episode? | Cotto argues Hale bars consecutive PRR/HFO sentences. | State contends Hale does not apply to PRR; no enhancement beyond maximum. | No; Hale does not apply to PRR consecutive to HVFO. |
| Is PRR an enhancement that triggers Hale’s consecutive-sentence prohibition? | PRR is not an enhancement to the maximum; Hale should apply. | PRR sets a floor, not an enhancement beyond maximum. | PRR is not an enhanced sentence; Hale inapplicable to PRR. |
| Does the Legislature’s intent in PRR justify consecutive PRR and HVFO sentences? | Legislative intent favors the use of maximum sentences and consecutive terms. | Intent to punish fullest extent supports, but not to foreclose PRR-consecutive HVFO. | Legislative intent supports PRR consecutive to HVFO absent Hale constraint. |
| Should the conflict with Williams be resolved by affirming Hale’s non-applicability to PRR? | Third District conflicted with Williams; Hale should control. | Williams correctly held Hale applies to HVFO; this is distinguishable. | Disapprove Williams; approve Third District’s interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1993) (consecutive HVFO sentences prohibited when arising from same episode)
- Daniels v. State, 595 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1992) (HVFO enhancements cannot consecutively increase sentences for same episode)
- Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1983) (consecutive minimums not allowed when not clearly authorized by statute)
- Enmund v. State, 476 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1985) (Palmer context—legislature may permit concurrent or consecutive where intended)
- Hill v. State, 660 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1995) (reaffirmed Hale limitation on consecutive habitual sentences)
- Reeves v. State, 920 So.2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (PRR not an enhancement beyond maximum; Hale not applied)