WILSON BRANDON SCOTT
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.
Although a victim's age that increases the maximum sentence is an element requiring jury determination under Apprendi/Blakely, the failure to obtain a jury verdict on this element is harmless error where the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the victim was under the required age.
[1] Apprendi/Blakely error is subject to harmless error analysis.
[2] Harmless error analysis applies to Sixth Amendment violations concerning judicial fact-finding in sentencing.
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“The age of the victim increased the maximum sentence faced by Appellant and was therefore an element of the crime which needed to be proven.”
Court's discussion of the constitutional requirement that elements affecting sentencing must be proven to a jury
Scott was convicted of sexual battery under Florida Statutes section 794.011(5)(a). The victim's age was testified to by the victim and her mother, wa…
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. 1D17-2992 _____________________________
WILSON BRANDON SCOTT,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.
November 6, 2018 PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges his conviction for sexual battery raising various grounds for error. We affirm and write only to address Appellant’s contention that the trial court improperly sentenced him to a first degree felony under section 794.011(5)(a), Florida Statutes, and improperly assessed an adult-on-minor sentence points multiplier under section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes, in absence of a jury verdict specifying the victim’s age. The age of the victim increased the maximum sentence faced by Appellant and was therefore an element of the crime which needed to be proven. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); Insko v. State, 969 So. 2d 922
2
(Fla. 2007); see also Coggins v. State, 921 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). However, any error here is subject to a harmless error analysis. “Where an Apprendi/Blakely error has occurred, the harmless error analysis asks, ‘whether the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found [the facts at issue].’” DeLaFe v. State, 124 So. 3d 293, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 523 (Fla. 2007)); see also Perritte v. State, 912 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that since defendant’s age was not in dispute there was no error in failing to instruct the jury on that element).* The issues in dispute at trial were whether the incidents happened and whether the victim was under Appellant’s custodial authority. The victim and her mother testified to the victim’s age, and it was not in dispute. Further, during closing arguments defense counsel called the victim “[a] 16 year old.” If any error occurred here, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, 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, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
* The possibility of jury pardon is not a consideration in conducting this harmless error analysis.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 258 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…rdict specifying the victim’s age. The age of the victim increased the maximum sentence faced by Appellant and was therefore an element of the crime which needed to be proven. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); Insko v. State, 969 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2007); see also Coggins v. State, 921 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). However, any error here is subject to a harmless error analysis. “Where an Apprendi/B…
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Coggins v. State, 921 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Kirby Cameron Perritte v. State, 912 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Scott v. State, 258 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Stocker v. Stocker, 124 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Davide Forrest DeLAFÉ v. State, 124 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)