The Third District Court of Appeal has affirmed a mandatory life sentence imposed as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) after a probation revocation. As Judge Miller’s concurrence describes the record, the State had waived PRR at the original plea. The court also certified conflict with the First District’s decision in Hill v. State, 403 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025).
Renardo Scott pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges in four Miami-Dade cases in exchange for ten years in prison followed by five years of probation. According to Judge Miller’s concurrence, the State waived PRR sentencing as part of the plea, put on no evidence that Scott qualified, and the judge told him, “[the] State is waiving that designation, but your record will start catching up to you, sir.” After he violated probation, the prosecutor announced she would seek PRR sentences on all four cases, and the trial court imposed mandatory life sentences.
Two holdings matter to practitioners. First, Scott’s probation was tolled while he served an unrelated Broward County prison sentence, so the probationary period did not begin until his release on November 3, 2022. Second, relying on section 948.06(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and the Third District’s decision in Foulks v. State, 306 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the court held that “[b]ecause Scott qualified for PRR at the time of sentencing, which he does not dispute, it was proper for the trial court to impose PRR as a result of the revocation of his probation.” The court also agreed that the PRR determination is “an administerial one” that does not require jury findings, citing Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), aff’d, 436 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 2026).
Judge Miller concurred to highlight what Judge Miller called the “unresolved conflict” between Foulks and Hill, which the concurrence said reached opposite results on virtually identical facts. In Hill, Judge Miller explained, the First District relied on Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2002), and held that where the State waived and did not prove PRR eligibility, and made no explicit statement about keeping the option open on revocation, the enhanced sentence “expired” once a guidelines sentence was imposed. “Here, Scott’s mandatory life PRR sentences were authorized under Foulks but impermissible under Hill,” Judge Miller wrote. The majority certified conflict “[c]onsistent with Judge Miller’s recommendation.”
Download the full opinion (PDF)
Citation: Scott v. State, No. 3D2024-2211 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 14, 2026) (Fernandez, J.; Lobree, J., concurring; Miller, J., concurring with opinion).
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.