From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crapps v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 28, 2007
968 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Summary

In Crapps, the First District concluded that shooting into an occupied vehicle did not qualify for enhanced sentencing since the portion of the statute that outlines the elements of the charge of shooting into an occupied building does not require the threat of violence or force to an individual.

Summary of this case from Paul v. State

Opinion

No. 1D06-2275.

October 26, 2007. Rehearing Denied November 28, 2007.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Leon County, Kathleen F. Dekker, J.

James C. Banks of the Law Office of Banks Morris, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


Appellant, Alander Crapps, appeals his judgment and sentence and argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him as a prison releasee reoffender ("PRR") because, he contends, the offense of throwing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle, as proscribed in section 790.19, Florida Statutes (2005), is not a qualifying offense for PRR classification under section 775.082(9)(a)1.0., Florida Statutes (2005). We agree. See Paul v. State, 958 So.2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that the appellant, who was convicted of shooting a deadly missile into a dwelling, did not qualify as a PRR); Hudson v. State, 800 So.2d 627, 628-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that the crime proscribed by section 790.19 is not a forcible felony because it includes shooting or throwing at unoccupied buildings and, thus, does not, by statutory definition, necessarily involve physical force or violence against an individual); see also State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 216 (Fla. 2007) (reiterating that the only relevant consideration in determining whether an offense constitutes a forcible felony is the statutory elements of the offense and that if "'the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual'" is not a necessary element of the offense, then the offense is not a forcible felony).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing.

ALLEN and BENTON. JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crapps v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 28, 2007
968 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

In Crapps, the First District concluded that shooting into an occupied vehicle did not qualify for enhanced sentencing since the portion of the statute that outlines the elements of the charge of shooting into an occupied building does not require the threat of violence or force to an individual.

Summary of this case from Paul v. State
Case details for

Crapps v. State

Case Details

Full title:Alander CRAPPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Nov 28, 2007

Citations

968 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Citing Cases

Paul v. State

The 17th Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, Michele Towbin–Singer, J., denied motion, and defendant…

Paul v. State

Appellant's PRR sentence is not illegal on this ground because his offense necessarily required the use of…