Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

736 So. 2d 1231

Docket No. 98-01472.

State v. White

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John A. WHITE, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-06-18

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2002

17 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“burglary of an occupied structure or dwelling”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 802 So. 2d 276 - State v. Huggins

Relies on 498 So. 2d 892 - Sparkman v. McClure · 721 So. 2d 1245 - Scott v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-06-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1232 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

¶2Jeffrey A. Haynes of Filipkowski & Haynes, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.

¶3BLUE, Judge.

¶4The State appeals the trial court's refusal to sentence John A. White as a prison releasee reoffender based on his conviction for burglary of a dwelling. The trial court refused to apply the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act because the dwelling was not occupied at the time of White's burglary. Because the Act does not require an occupied dwelling, we reverse.

¶5The legislature has defined a prison releasee reoffender as a defendant who, within three years of being released from prison, commits or attempts to commit an offense from the list enumerated in the statute. See § 775.082(8)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (1997). The list of qualifying offenses includes "[b]urglary of an occupied structure or dwelling." § 775.082(8)(a)1q. The State argues that the word "or" between "occupied structure" and "dwelling" indicates a legislative intent to treat the two alternatives separately. "[T]he use of the word "or" is generally construed in the disjunctive when used in a statute or rule .... [and] indicates that alternatives were intended." Sparkman v. McClure,498 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1986). The Fourth District has concluded that "whether the dwelling was occupied has no legal effect for purposes of sentencing under the [Prison Releasee Reoffender] Act." Scott v. State,721 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citations omitted). We agree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing under the Act.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

¶7ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

/736/so2d/1231 · .json · Public domain