RANDALL MACKENZIE BROCK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2024-08-23
No. 2023-1905
Clayton, J., Lambert, J., Kilbane, J., MacIver, J.
2024 FL 10402 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2024)

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 trial court must make explicit findings as to whether a violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community before imposing a sentence upon revocation of probation.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must make explicit findings regarding whether a violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community before imposing or revising a sen…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Randall Brock's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison. The trial court did not make findings regarding whether Bro…

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.


Per_curiam
Per Curiam

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2023-1905 LT Case No. 2021-CF-000502 _____________________________ RANDALL MACKENZIE BROCK, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County. James R. Clayton, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. August 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Randall Brock, appeals from an order of revocation of probation. The State correctly concedes error on the limited basis that the trial court failed to make findings as to whether Brock, as a violent felony offender of special concern, posed a danger to the community when imposing Brock’s sentence of thirty-six months in prison. See § 948.06(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (2023);

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.

LAMBERT, KILBANE, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

1 Typically, upon making a finding that a violent felony offender of special concern poses a danger to the community, the trial court would be required to revoke that defendant’s probation and sentence him or her up to, or beyond, the statutory maximum, as permitted by law. See § 948.06(8)(e)2.a. However, because the trial court previously sentenced Brock to thirty-six months in prison, while it may again impose that sentence, it may not impose a sentence exceeding thirty-six months in prison. See Singh, 135 So. 3d at 1137 n.1.

Footnotes
2 see also Barber v. State, 207 So. 3d 379, 383–85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to make the required findings as to whether Brock poses a danger to the community and to resentence him accordingly.1 See Singh v. State, 135 So. 3d 1136, 1136–37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); see also Barber, 207 So. 3d at 386. In all other respects, we affirm the revocation of probation order.
3 _____________________________

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw