Patterson v. State
206 So. 3d 64
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant, serving a 28-year sentence for carjacking, committed aggravated battery against another inmate while incarcerated and was convicted.
- At sentencing on the aggravated battery (PRR) count, the trial court imposed a 15-year Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) sentence to run consecutively, with 463 days’ credit.
- The trial court stated it believed its only discretion was to award credit for time served and agreed with the State that the PRR sentence had to be consecutive.
- Defense moved under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2) arguing the court had discretion to run the PRR sentence concurrently; the trial court failed to rule within the rule’s time window (motion deemed denied).
- On appeal, the defendant argued the trial court erred by mistakenly believing it lacked discretion to impose concurrent sentences; the State contended the court correctly thought consecutive sentences were mandatory.
- The appellate court reviewed the issue de novo and reversed, holding the trial court misapprehended its sentencing discretion and remanded for resentencing with proper recognition of concurrent/consecutive discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had discretion to impose PRR sentence concurrently or must impose consecutively | The State argued PRR sentence must be consecutive and court lacked discretion to make it concurrent | Defendant argued the trial court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion and had authority to order concurrent sentences | Court held the PRR statute does not remove judge’s general discretion; remanded for the court to exercise discretion whether to run sentences concurrently or consecutively |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mosley, 149 So.3d 684 (Fla. 2014) (de novo review and recognition of sentencing discretion)
- Weire v. State, 776 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (PRR qualification requires sentencing under PRR Act once proven)
- Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625 (Fla. 2007) (nothing in PRR statute restricts judge’s concurrent/consecutive sentencing discretion)
- Goldwire v. State, 73 So.3d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (remand required where trial court mistakenly believes it lacks sentencing discretion)