HANEY v. STATE (2021)

In this Anders ¹ appeal, Shane Michael Haney argues for reversal of his mandatory five-year sentence as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because the record fails to support his sentence as a PRR, we reverse his sentence and remand for resentencing.

During the pendency of this appeal, Haney filed a timely motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).² In his motion, Haney argued that although he had agreed to be sentenced as a PRR as part of his negotiated plea, he did not stipulate that he qualified as a PRR and that the State did not prove that he met the statutory requirements for PRR sentencing. The State conceded that the record did not reflect any such stipulation or evidence and that, therefore, Haney was entitled to a resentencing hearing. See Hamilton v. State, 746 So. 2d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing for resentencing where the State failed to present proof of the defendant's PRR status and the defendant did not stipulate that he qualified as a PRR despite his agreement to be sentenced as a PRR). Accordingly, we reverse Haney's sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again impose a PRR sentence if the State provides sufficient documentation to prove, or Haney stipulates, that he qualifies as a PRR. See id.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2.   The trial court entered an order dismissing Haney's motion because it failed to rule on the motion within sixty days. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (stating that if the court fails to file an order ruling on the motion within sixty days the motion is deemed denied).

PER CURIAM.

KELLY, LaROSE, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.