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.
Anthony Joseph LUNARDI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Anthony J. Lunardi appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After he was convicted of robbery with a weapon, Lunardi was sentenced to forty-five years' imprisonment as an habitual felony offender and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR).1 He then filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, contending that he was erroneously sentenced as both an habitual felony offender and a PRR. Although we conclude Lunardi is not entitled to relief, the sentencing documents are confusing and we remand for clarification.
Robbery with a weapon is a first-degree felony punishable by up to thirty years' imprisonment. § 812.13(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). Because Lunardi was properly classified as an habitual felony offender, the sentence was increased to a maximum of life. § 775.084(4)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2008). Courts are free to impose PRR and habitual offender sentences for a single offense so long as the habitual offender sentence results in a greater sentence. Austin v. State, 968 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). A PRR sentence serves as a minimum mandatory condition of a defendant's sentence under the habitual offender laws. State v. Manning, 839 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
In this case, the sentencing documents do not clearly specify that Lunardi's forty-five-year sentence is as an habitual offender, with the first thirty years being served as a PRR. Such confusion might cause the Department of Corrections to miscalculate Lunardi's release date. As a result, although we affirm the denial of Lunardi's motion to correct sentence, on remand, the trial court shall enter a corrected judgment as discussed.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION.
FOOTNOTES
1. Lunardi was also sentenced on two other counts, which are not relevant to this appeal.
PER CURIAM.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, 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. 5D10-263.
Decided: June 11, 2010
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)