STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
AUBERINO LAPITON WILSON, 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.
The State appeals a sentence where the trial court refused to impose a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) enhancement, believing the jury must make the requisite findings under Alleyne v. United States. The appellate court reversed, holding that jury findings are not required for PRR sentencing and remanded for resentencing.
The court held that the trial court erred in requiring jury findings for PRR sentencing. Under Florida law and prior Fourth DCA precedent, a jury need not make the requisite findings for PRR sentencing, and the trial court may impose such enhanced sentences based on other evidence presented.
[1] A jury is not required to make findings necessary for the imposition of a prison releasee reoffender sentence.
[2] The determination of whether a defendant qualifies for prison releasee reoffender sentencing does not require a jury finding of fact.
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“the jury would have to make the requisite finding that the defendant committed the robbery within three years of his release from prison”
The trial court's erroneous interpretation of Alleyne that led to refusing PRR sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury convicted the defendant of robbery with a firearm and grand theft. The state introduced evidence that the defendant committed the robbery withi…
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 Enhanced Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
The state appeals the defendant’s sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that it could not impose a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) sentence in the absence of findings by the jury that the defendant qualified for such enhanced sentencing. We agree and reverse and remand for resentencing.
A jury found the defendant guilty of robbery with a firearm and grand theft. The state sought to have the defendant sentenced as a PRR pursuant to section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2011), and introduced evidence that he committed the robbery within three years of his release from prison. Defense counsel acknowledged that the evidence established that the defendant qualified for PRR sentencing, but he objected to such sentencing on the grounds that the jury had to make the necessary findings. The trial court found that “the defense properly concedes that [the defendant] ... notwithstanding the Alleyne objection, would meet ... the criteria of being designated as a prison re-leasee reoffender.” The court found, however, that under Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), the jury would have to make the requisite finding that the defendant committed the robbery within three years of his release from prison. The court declined to sentence the defendant as a PRR, instead sentencing him to thirty-five years in prison with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.
Section 775.082(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides for enhanced sentencing as a PRR if a defendant is convicted of an enumerated offense, which includes robbery, “within 3 years after being released from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections ... following incarceration for an offense for which the sentence is punishable by more than 1 year in this state.”
This court has previously rejected the argument that, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. 2151, a jury must make the requisite findings for PRR sentencing. See Chapa v. *194 State, 159 So.3d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (adopting reasoning of Williams v. State, 143 So.3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), and Lopez v. State, 135 So.3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)).
Accordingly, we agree with the state and hold that the trial court erred in finding it could not impose a PRR sentence in the absence of jury findings. We reverse and remand for resentencing. We find the defendant’s cross-appeal to' be without merit and affirm the conviction without discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Ramos v. State, 274 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
-
Chauncey James Gardner v. State, 275 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
-
Garrett Worth v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 14 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)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013)
- Lopez v. State, 135 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Williams v. State, 143 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)