SHAWN MICHAEL SPROTT, 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.
Sprott appealed his 24-month prison sentence imposed for forgery and related third-degree felonies, arguing the sentence violated Apprendi/Blakely principles and that the trial court's findings supporting imprisonment lacked evidentiary support. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial court's findings that a nonstate prison sanction would present a danger to the public were not supported by the record.
The court reversed Sprott's prison sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding that the trial court's findings that a nonstate prison sanction would present a danger to the public were not supported by the record. The court declined to reach the Apprendi/Blakely issue and directed that on remand, Sprott be sentenced to a nonstate prison sanction as required by section 775.082(10).
[1] A statute requiring a trial judge, rather than a jury, to make a factual finding of dangerousness to the public to increase an offender's maximum sentence is unconstituti…
[2] A prison sentence imposed under section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes, requires written findings supported by competent, substantial evidence that a nonstate prison sanct…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“that section authorizes the trial court to impose a prison sentence if it makes written findings "that a nonstate prison sanction could present a danger to the public."”
Establishes the statutory exception allowing the trial court to deviate from the presumptive nonstate prison sanction when public danger findings are made.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSprott pled nolo contendere to counts of forgery, possession of forged notes, attempted scheme to defraud, and possession of a forged driver's license…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant pled nolo contendere to the counts of forgery (uttering a forged bill), possession of forged notes or bills, an attempted scheme to defraud, and possession of a forged, stolen or fictitious driver’s license — all third-degree felonies. See §§ 881.09; 881.08; 817.034(4) & 777.04; 322.212(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). On his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet, appellant scored twenty “total sentencing points,” corresponding to a mandatory nonstate prison sanction under section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2011). Nevertheless, that section authorizes the trial court to impose a prison sentence if it makes written findings “that a nonstate prison sanction could present a danger to the public.” § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (2011). The trial *635court did so in appellant’s case and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Now, on appeal, appellant contends his prison sentence violates Ap-prendi 1 and Blakely2 because it exceeds the maximum sentence the trial court could impose under section 775.082(10), based on facts neither admitted to by appellant nor as found by a jury. Alternatively, appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence because the record does not support the trial court’s findings that a nonstate prison sanction would present a danger to society. Because the state properly concedes error on the second issue based on our controlling decision in Jones v. State, 71 So.3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011),3 we conclude, as did the majority in Jones, that we need not reach the Apprendi /Blakely issue. Id. at 174.4 Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand, the trial court shall sentence appellant to a nonstate prison sanction as required by section 775.082(10).5
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 192 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…rns have arisen in relation to section 775.082(10). However, no court in Florida has yet reached the issue. See Murphy v. State, 161 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Murray v. State, 133 So. 3d 557, 558-59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Sprott v. State, 99 So. 3d 634, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). But see Jones, 71 So. 3d at 176-79 (Thomas, J., concurring in result only) (arguing that section 775.082(10) is unconstitutional under Apprendi). . Paragraph six of t…
-
Dinkines v. State, 122 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…this case does not support the trial court’s finding that Din-kines could be a danger to the public without a prison sentence. Thus, the trial court must fashion a nonstate prison sentence that comports with section 775.082(10). See Sprott v. State, 99 So. 3d 634, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remanding for resentencing with restriction that the trial court impose a nonstate prison sanction); Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173, 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that the record did not support the trial court’s finding…
-
Marlena Christine Woods v. State, 214 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…and other courts within the last six years only to have the issue side-stepped and remain unaddressed. See, e.g., Murphy v. State, 161 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Murray v. State, 133 So. 3d 557, 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Sprott v. State, 99 So. 3d 634, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Casper v. State, 187 So. 3d 255, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (Makar, J., concurring dubitante) ("Our court, though being presented with the issue, has avoided wri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Jackson v. State, 64 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2011)
- Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)