Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant's convictions for burglary of an occupied structure and petit theft are upheld. However, the sentencing is reversed due to the imposition of two equal concurrent sentences under both the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and the habitual felony offender statute, which is not permissible. The court remands the case for resentencing solely under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute, following the precedent set in Grant v. State, which prohibits equal concurrent sentences unless one is harsher. Appellant is not required to be present at the resentencing. Judges Gunther, Klein, and Taylor concur with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burglary and Petit Theft Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upholds the appellant's convictions for burglary of an occupied structure and petit theft.
Reasoning: Appellant's convictions for burglary of an occupied structure and petit theft are upheld.
Presence of Defendant during Resentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant is not required to be present during the resentencing process.
Reasoning: Appellant is not required to be present at the resentencing.
Sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court mandates resentencing solely under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute due to the improper concurrent sentencing with the habitual felony offender statute.
Reasoning: The court remands the case for resentencing solely under the Prison Releasee Reoffender statute, following the precedent set in Grant v. State, which prohibits equal concurrent sentences unless one is harsher.