TORIANO A. BROOKS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2025-12-12
No. 2023-3198
Eisnaugle, J., Lambert, J., Kilbane, J., Foxman, J.
2025 FL 11889 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2025)

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

A Prison Releasee Reoffender sentence imposed based on a defendant's stipulation to the qualifying facts does not violate Apprendi because the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum as defined by facts admitted by the defendant.

Headnotes

[1] A sentence imposed based on a defendant's stipulation to facts does not violate Apprendi v. …

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Key Quotes

“the statutory maximum is defined, for Apprendi purposes, as the 'sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.'”

Court's explanation of the Blakely standard for determining when Apprendi protections apply
Facts & Procedural History

Toriano Brooks was sentenced as a Prison Releasee Reoffender after being released from prison on June 5, 2021, and committing an offense on June 20, 2…

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.

Topics
Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing Sixth Amendment (Right To Jury Trial) Right To Jury Trial

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Kilbane

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-3198 LT Case No. 2021-303299-CFDB _____________________________

TORIANO A. BROOKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Karen A. Foxman, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

December 12, 2025

EISNAUGLE, J.

We affirm Toriano Brooks’s judgment and sentence and write to explain why his Prison Releasee Reoffender (“PRR”) sentence does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Maye is currently under review in the Florida Supreme Court. See Maye v. State, No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25, 2024).

Footnotes
2 On appeal, Brooks argues that his PRR sentence is unconstitutional because a jury did not determine the date of his release from prison. While a jury did not make the finding, Brooks is not entitled to relief because he stipulated to the dispositive facts at sentencing: The Court: And is there a stipulation from the defense? Counsel: Yes, I discussed that with my client and we stipulate that he was released June 5, 2021. This offense occurred June 20, 2021, so that would be within that three-year period. Some courts have employed a harmless error analysis when an Apprendi claim is based on stipulated facts. E.g., Flournoy v. State, 415 So. 3d 806, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025). However, we conclude a harmless error analysis is unnecessary because a sentence based on a defendant’s stipulation does not violate Apprendi in the first place. The Sixth Amendment requires that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. Importantly, the statutory maximum is defined, for Apprendi purposes, as the “sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004). Under Blakely, the judge in this case had authority to impose a PRR sentence without a jury’s determination because Brooks admitted the facts that qualified him as a prison releasee reoffender. Therefore, the sentence imposed was not “beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes.1 1 Brooks also cannot prevail on appeal because in Simmons v. State, 332 So. 3d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), we held that the factual findings required to impose a PRR sentence may be made by the judge, instead of a jury. Our decision in Simmons remains binding, but we recognize that our sister court followed Simmons in Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531, 532 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), and that
3 Accordingly, Brooks’s sentence does not violate Apprendi, and his judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw