ERIC DONALD JACKSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court cannot make factual findings under section 775.082(10) that increase a probationer's maximum sentence beyond the statutory nonstate prison sanction because such findings violate the Sixth Amendment as established in Apprendi and Blakely.
[1] A statute requiring a judge to make factual findings that increase a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum is unconstitutional.
[2] Judicial findings that increase a defendant's maximum sentence beyond a nonstate prison sanction violate the principles established in Apprendi v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson admitted to violating probation with a scoresheet reflecting 19 sentencing points. The trial court made written findings that Jackson posed a …
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 Blakely Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-3470 _____________________________
ERIC DONALD JACKSON,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge.
September 5, 2018 PER CURIAM. Eric Donald Jackson admitted to violating his probation and his corrected scoresheet reflected a total of 19 sentencing points. Pursuant to section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2015), the trial court was required to sentence Jackson to a nonstate prison sanction. However, the trial court made written findings that Jackson could present a danger to the public if subject only to a nonprison sanction and sentenced Jackson to 5 years’ imprisonment. Jackson now raises a constitutional challenge to section 775.082(10), arguing that a jury, not a judge, is required to make the factual findings that were used to increase his punishment beyond the statutory maximum of a nonstate prison sanction.
2
The outcome of this case is controlled by our recent decision in Booker v. State, 244 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). There, we held that section 775.082(10) was unconstitutional as it applied to Booker because it authorized the trial court to make factual findings that increased his maximum sentence from 1 year in county jail to 4 years in prison contrary to the holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Booker, 244 So. 3d at 1163-64; but see Brown v. State, 233 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), review granted by 2018 WL 2069393 (Fla. Apr. 9, 2018). Here, the trial court made factual findings that increased Jackson’s maximum sentence from 1 year in county jail to 5 years in prison. Thus, as required by our holding in Booker, we reverse Jackson’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the prior version of section 775.082(10).
REVERSED and REMANDED. WOLF, LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Booker v. State, 244 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Brown v. State, 233 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)