← Case library
4th DCANovember 19, 2025Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions⭐ Notable

Munden v. State

Case No. 4D2023-0949

The Fourth DCA reversed Munden's sentence on attempted first-degree murder because his Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) designation was an ex post facto violation—he was released from a county jail, not a state DOC facility, under the pre-2019 version of the PRR statute as construed in State v. Lewars—and because the trial court impermissibly designated him as both an HFO and HVFO on the same count in violation of Clines v. State. The court also remanded Count 2 to impose the mandatory minimum firearm enhancement the trial court had erroneously omitted, ordered a corrected scoresheet, and directed correction of scrivener's errors so the written sentence conforms to the oral pronouncement.

Key facts

  • Munden was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) with both Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) and Habitual Violent Felony Offender (HVFO) designations on the same count.
  • The trial court failed to impose a mandatory minimum firearm enhancement on Count 2 and the written sentencing order contained discrepancies from the oral pronouncement.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This opinion is a useful practical guide for challenging stacked recidivist enhancements and PRR designations based on release location, reaffirming that release from a county jail (rather than a state DOC facility)… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.