HOBDY v. STATE (2022)

Leondrae Hobdy appeals the postconviction court's order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Mr. Hobdy was illegally sentenced to equal concurrent sentences as both a habitual felony offender (HFO) and a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), we reverse.

A jury found Mr. Hobdy guilty of four felonies, two of which are relevant here: count one, burglary of a dwelling while armed with a firearm (a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment), and count two, armed kidnapping (a life felony punishable by life imprisonment). On each of these counts, Mr. Hobdy was sentenced to life imprisonment as both an HFO and PRR, with a ten-year minimum mandatory term pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2017) (10-20-Life).

The “imposition of equal concurrent sentences under the PRR and HFO statutes ․ violates the provisions of the PRR statute.” McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605, 608 n.4 (Fla. 2007) (citing Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 659 (Fla. 2000)). Rather, courts are only authorized “to deviate from the prison releasee reoffender sentencing scheme to impose a greater sentence of incarceration.” Walls v. State, 765 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also § 775.082(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017). “[B]ecause a life term under the habitual felony offender statute is not greater than a life term under the prison releasee reoffender statute, the trial court was without authority to sentence appellant under the habitual felony offender statute.” Walls, 765 So. 2d at 734.

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Hobdy's motion and remand with directions to strike the habitual felony offender designations on counts one and two. Id.

Reversed and remanded.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

CASANUEVA and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.