Jones v. State
71 So. 3d 173
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jones was convicted of a third-degree felony (driving with a cancelled license) and sentenced to three years in state prison, though his scoring suggested a nonstate sanction was appropriate.
- The trial court sentenced under 775.082(10) based on written findings that a nonstate sanction could endanger the public, justifying prison.
- The written findings asserted danger due to unlicensed driving, potential eluding, lack of insurance, and incarceration as only means to protect the public.
- Jones challenged the prison sentence, arguing the findings were unsupported and that Blakely/Apprendi prohibit a prison sentence based on judicial rather than jury findings.
- The appellate court reversed on the 775.082(10) issue, remanding for a nonstate sanction; the court did not reach the Blakely/Apprendi issue, though a concurring judge criticized the result.
- The case discusses that 775.082(10) aims to divert low-risk offenders to nonstate sanctions and requires written findings to depart from the presumptive nonstate sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written findings justify prison under 775.082(10). | Jones contends findings do not show public danger to justify prison. | State argues records support danger and warrant prison. | Findings insufficient; reversal and remand for nonstate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCloud v. State, 55 So.3d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (danger may include economic harm; need adequate record for 775.082(10) findings)
- Hutto v. State, 50 So.3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (requires written findings for departure under 775.082(10))
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1987) (upward departure rules on remand apply; cannot enunciate new reasons after reversal)
- Jackson v. State, 64 So.3d 90 (Fla. 2011) (remand where downward departure on remand allowed under CPCode; contexts differ)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) ( Sixth Amendment requires juries to find facts increasing sentence beyond statutory maximum)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proven to a jury)
- McCloud v. State, 55 So.3d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (danger to public can be economic or other harm; statutory interpretation context)