Case Name: Gregory THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-10-06
Citations: 741 So. 2d 1246
Docket Number: No. 98-02761
Parties: Gregory THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GREEN, J., Dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 741
Pages: 1246–1247

Head Matter:
Gregory THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 98-02761.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 6, 1999.
Edward T. Wright, Belleair Bluffs, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
BLUE, Judge.
Gregory Thomas challenges his sentence as a "prison releasee reoffender" imposed following his convictions for burglary and attempted burglary. Because we conclude that Thomas had not been released from a state correctional facility at the time he committed the offenses for which he was sentenced, we reverse.
Thomas was confined in the St. Peters-burg Community Correctional Center, a state correctional facility. On September 27, 1997, he was charged with escape when he walked away from his work release employment and did not return to St. Pe-tersburg Community' Correctional Center. Thomas was charged with burglary and attempted burglary committed two days later. He was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, attempted burglary of a dwelling and escape. The trial court sentenced Thomas as a prison releasee reoffender for the burglary and attempted burglary.
Thomas was sentenced pursuant to section 775.082(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). This statute provides that a defendant who commits or attempts to commit certain enumerated offenses, including burglary of a dwelling, within three years of being released from a state correctional facility, is a "prison releasee reoffender." The statute in question does not define "released." Thomas contends he cannot be an escapee and a releasee at the same time. The State contends that when Thomas walked away from his work release, he accomplished "self-release" and was thus properly sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender.
Where, as here, the language of the statute is susceptible of differing constructions, section 775.021(1) requires that we adopt the construction most favorable to the defendant. We reject the argument that the statute was intended to include "self-release" within the definition of release. Our reading of the statute convinces us that it contemplates a release initiated by the State.
Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the prison releasee reoffender portion of Thomas' sentences and remand for deletion of that portion of the sentences. The sentences are otherwise affirmed. PATTERSON, C.J., Concurs.
GREEN, J., Dissents with opinion.