DENNIS T. HUTTO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Hutto challenges his 18-month prison sentence for driving with a suspended license, arguing it violates Florida's mandatory nonstate prison sentencing law because his guideline score of 14.1 points falls well below the 22-point threshold and the trial court made no written findings justifying departure to state prison.
The sentence is illegal because Hutto scored 14.1 points, well below the 22-point threshold, and the record contains no written findings that he presented a danger to the public justifying departure to state prison. A nonstate prison sentence was mandatory under the applicable statute.
[1] A court must sentence an offender to a nonstate prison sanction if the offender commits a third-degree felony (not a forcible felony or certain other excluded offenses) a…
[2] A trial court must either attach record documents conclusively refuting a defendant's claim of an illegal sentence or conduct further proceedings when the claim is facial…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“on or after July 1, 2009, which is a third degree felony but not a forcible felony as defined in s. 776.08, and excluding any third degree felony violation under chapter 810, and if the total sentence points pursuant to s. 921.0024 are 22 points or fewer, the court must sentence the offender to a nonstate prison sanction. However, if the court makes written findings that a nonstate prison sanction could present a danger to the public, the court may sentence the offender to a [state] correctional facility”
This statute established the mandatory nonstate prison sentencing requirement that applies to Hutto's case, with the exception for written findings of public danger.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 2009, Hutto was arrested for driving while license suspended or revoked. He negotiated a plea agreement calling for 18 months' imprisonmen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nonstate Prison Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant has filed a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion stating that in November 2009 he was arrested for driving while license suspended or revoked, and thereafter entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the state which called for a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. He scored 14.1 points on his guidelines scoresheet. The court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment. The appellant states that the court did not make any findings that he could be a danger to the public if the court did not sentence him to prison, and the record does not contain any such written findings.
In the instant motion the appellant argues that his sentence is illegal because, for the reason set forth below, he should have been sentenced to a nonstate prison sentence based upon his score of 14.1 points. The trial court denied the motion without any analysis or record attachments.
The appellant bases his illegal sentence claim on the fact that section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2009), which took effect just prior to the appellant’s arrest, states that anyone who commits a crime:
on or after July 1, 2009, which is a third degree felony but not a forcible felony as defined in s. 776.08, and excluding any third degree felony violation under chapter 810, and if the total sentence points pursuant to s. 921.0024 are 22 points or fewer, the court must sentence the offender to a nonstate prison sanction. However, if the court makes written findings that a nonstate prison sanction could present a danger to the public, the court may sentence the offender to a *86state correctional facility pursuant to this section.
As noted, the appellant scored 14.1 points on his scoresheet, and the record before this Court does not contain any written findings from the lower court that the appellant could present a danger to the public if not sentenced to prison. It thus appears from the record that the appellant should have been sentenced to a nonstate prison sentence.
We therefore reverse and remand the order on appeal for the lower court to either attach record documents conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or for further proceedings. See e.g., West v. State, 818 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…and impose a prison sentence, but only if the court specifically finds that sentencing the offender to a nonstate prison sanction could present a danger to the public. Id. The trial court’s findings must be in writing. Id.; see also Hutto v. State, 50 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). There is very little case law interpreting section 775.082(10). The only case reviewing the sufficiency of the findings made by the trial court to justify a prison sentence, rather than a nonstate prison sanction, is McCloud v.…
-
Vandyke v. State, 76 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…written findings required by section 775.082(10) does not result in an illegal sentence. In so ruling, we recognize that the First District recently analyzed a section 775.082(10) violation claim under rule 3.800(a) on the merits in Hutto v. State, 50 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); however, that decision did not address whether such a claim was cognizable under rule 3.800(a). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . The section reads, in pertinent part: 775.082 Penalties; Applicability of…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 818 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)