Opinion
No. 2D00-1876.
Opinion filed March 21, 2001.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Andrea S. Manthorne, Special Assistant, Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Mr. Dinnocenzo raises two sentencing issues arising from his conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. First, he asserts that the imposition of an enhanced penalty pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA), section 775.082(9)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2000), was erroneous. We affirm on this point. In Medina v. State, 751 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 760 So.2d 138 (Fla. 2000), this court held that the PRRA applies to the offense of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. As in Medina, we certify conflict with State v. Huggins, 744 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), review granted, 761 So.2d 332 (Fla. 2000).
Mr. Dinnocenzo's second point is that he was erroneously sentenced as both a prison releasee reoffender and as a habitual felony offender. Mr. Dinnocenczo is correct because the habitual offender sentence did not increase the severity of his prison releasee reoffender sentence, the only situation in which deviation from the PRRA scheme is permitted. InGrant v. State, 770 So.2d 665 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court determined that a trial court is not authorized to impose concurrent terms as a habitual felony offender and as a prison releasee reoffender. Accordingly, we strike the habitual offender designation. Green v. State, 2001 WL 127866 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 16, 2001).
Prison releasee reoffender sentence affirmed; habitual offender designation stricken.
Salcines and Stringer, JJ., Concur.