Travis Ball v. State
208 So. 3d 327
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Travis Ball pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular homicide and was sentenced as both a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) and a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR).
- The trial court imposed a 22-year sentence; 15 years were mandatory under the PRR catchall provision in section 775.082(9)(a)1.o. (2013).
- Vehicular homicide is not specifically listed in the PRR statute; the court relied on the catchall phrase: "any felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual."
- Ball conceded HFO status but contested PRR classification, arguing vehicular homicide does not necessarily involve physical force or violence.
- The Fifth District reviewed the question de novo, focusing on whether physical force or violence is a necessary element of vehicular homicide under the statute and controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vehicular homicide qualifies under PRR catchall as a felony involving physical force or violence | Ball: vehicular homicide can occur without physical force or violence; thus it is not a qualifying PRR offense | State: vehicular homicide requires reckless operation causing death, which necessarily involves physical force or violence and thus fits the catchall | Court: vehicular homicide requires death caused by reckless driving and necessarily involves physical force/violence; PRR classification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. State, 975 So. 2d 1073 (review standard for statutory interpretation of PRR catchall)
- State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (same-words canon and forcible felony analysis)
- Perkins v. State, 576 So. 2d 1310 (defining when use or threat of force is a necessary element)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (defining "physical force")
- Ellis v. State, 135 So. 3d 478 (courts consider statutory elements, not particular evidence, for catchall analysis)
- Berube v. State, 6 So. 3d 624 (vehicular homicide requires elements of reckless driving)
- D.E. v. State, 904 So. 2d 558 (reckless driving requires reasonable foreseeability of harm)
- State v. Lebron, 954 So. 2d 52 (vehicular homicide involves knowingly driving under circumstances likely to cause death or great bodily harm)
- Bynes v. State, 127 So. 3d 556 (distinguishing aggravated fleeing and eluding from forcible felonies)