Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mickey Michael CLARK, Appellee.
The state appeals from the trial court's refusal to sentence Clark as a prison releasee reoffender because he committed the criminal offense of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. The state asks this court to agree with the first and second district courts of appeal 1 that burglary of a dwelling, whether or not occupied, is a qualifying offense under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA). The trial court followed State v. Huggins, 744 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 761 So.2d 332 (Fla.1999), which held to the contrary. However, after the trial court made its ruling, this court adopted the first and second district's view.2
At issue in these cases is the interpretation of section 775.082(9)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1999), which lists qualifying offenses under the PRRA. Subsection (q) lists the following as qualifying offenses: “burglary of an occupied structure or dwelling .” Does the adjective “occupied” modify both of the nouns, structure and dwelling, or does it modify only structure? Arguments can be made to support either interpretation based on grammar and logic.
However, the Legislature's general definition of the crime of burglary of a dwelling does not discriminate between whether or not the dwelling is occupied. § 810.02(3), Fla. Stat. Both are second degree felonies. The statute makes burglary of an occupied structure a second degree felony and burglary of an unoccupied structure a third degree felony. Thus it is logical to interpret the PRRA as picking up the second degree felonies for PRRA sentencing, but not the third degree felony. So “occupied” only modifies “structure.”
Accordingly we reverse, but certify conflict with Huggins.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Medina v. State, 758 So.2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 760 So.2d 947 (Fla.2000); Foresta v. State, 751 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 767 So.2d 456 (Fla.2000); Hunter v. State, 751 So.2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 767 So.2d 457 (Fla.2000); Medina v. State, 751 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 760 So.2d 947 (Fla.2000); State v. White, 736 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
2. Whiten v. State, 765 So.2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
SHARP, W., J.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 5D00-393.
Decided: March 09, 2001
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)