 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Souza v. State12/17/2004
e choice which, when plainly stated, offers little room for judicial gloss." Id. Thus, the court held that manslaughter caused while one is driving under the influence of alcohol is, indeed, a qualifying offense within the HFO statute.
While the DUI manslaughter statute has been renumbered and moved to a different location in the statute books, White remains analogous to the present case. Intent is still not an element of either manslaughter or DUI manslaughter, and the major difference in the statute considered by the White court and the current relocated statute is the insertion of the letters "DUI" before manslaughter. We do not believe that the change of location and the insertion of the letters are significant.
Moreover, a number of the crimes listed in the PRR Act as qualifying offenses are described in their broadest sense. Murder, for example, is listed as one of the qualifying offenses. There are, of course, several degrees of murder and a number of different methods of committing that crime set forth in the statutes, yet the PRR Act does not differentiate, for example, between second and third degree murder. See § 782.04, Florida Statutes (2003). It simply says, murder. That the description of murder is generic does not prevent a defendant from being sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender for having committed that offense. See, e.g., Miller v. State, 772 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Thus, we are convinced that the most logical reading of the PRR Act is that DUI manslaughter is a variety of manslaughter, and that the legislature intended to include it within the ambit of the PRR Act. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence rendered by the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, CJ., and PETERSON, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|