ALTERISIO v. STATE (2019)

Appellant, Michael Alterisio, appeals his prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) sentence, imposed pursuant to section 775.082(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), arguing that the State did not offer competent, substantial evidence that he was released from a prison sentence within three years of his commission of the operative crime. We agree and reverse for resentencing.

At sentencing, the State relied on a certified document that demonstrates Appellant was “released” from a Connecticut correctional institution within three years of the instant offense. However, given Appellant's specific history, that single document does not, by itself, establish that Appellant was released from a prison sentence instead of from temporary detention. See Cassista v. State, 57 So. 3d 265, 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“In most cases, it is a simple matter to determine when an individual is released from a state correctional facility. However, offenders are sometimes only temporarily detained. Unless those detentions ‘ripen’ into reimprisonment, they are excluded from consideration for PRR purposes.” (citations omitted)); accord Colson v. State, 114 So. 3d 415, 416–17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Brinson v. State, 851 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As such, we conclude that the State failed to present competent, substantial evidence that Appellant qualifies for a PRR sentence.

We therefore remand for resentencing where the State may offer additional evidence to establish Appellant's status as a PRR. See Dean v. State, 230 So. 3d 420, 424 (Fla. 2017) (“On remand, the State may present evidence to prove that Dean meets the statutory requirements to be sentenced as a PRR.” (citations omitted)).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PER CURIAM.

ORFINGER, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.