FRANK LANDON ADAMS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2016-12-22
No. Case No. 5D16-1914
COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
206 So. 3d 842 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2016)

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.


Holding

The court held that the lower court erred by failing to address the defendant's Apprendi/Blakely claim regarding the judge's finding of dangerousness.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his sentence was illegal because the judge, not the jury, found him to be a dange…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Frank Landon Adams, Jr., is appealing the postconviction court’s denial of his “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence” filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

In Ground One, Sub-Claim One, Adams asserts that his sentence is illegal because the trial judge, as opposed to the jury before whom he was tried, made the finding that he was a danger to the public. Adams further claimed that by doing so, the trial court circumvented the statutory maximum sentence in section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2012), and disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Ap-prendi and Blakely, 1 The lower court appears to have misconstrued Adams’ claim because in denying relief, the court simply found that Adams’ upward departure sentence was legal because the trial judge found Adams to be a danger to the public. The lower court failed to address Adams’ allegation of an Apprendi/Blakely violation. We reverse and remand as to this ground with instructions for the trial court to consider and rule on the merits of Adams’ Apprendi/Blakely claim. We affirm all other issues without further discussion.2

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw