Reed v. State, 192 So. 3d 641

In Dec. 2011 police discovered 29 pit bulls at Reed's property with injuries, heavy chains, lineage papers indicating fighting bloodlines, and horse blood supplements; Reed was charged with 11 counts of animal fighting/baiting (third-degree felonies) and 11 counts of animal cruelty (misdemeanors).
A jury convicted Reed on all 22 counts in Dec. 2014; Reed's CPC scoresheet totaled 13.9 points, making him presumptively eligible for a nonstate prison sanction under § 775.082(10) (third-degree felony, committed after July 1, 2009, 22 points or fewer).
The sentencing court orally found Reed a danger to the public and imposed an aggregate 25-year state prison term followed by 30 years' probation, then entered a written "Public Danger Order" listing facts about the dogs and concluding Reed was a "professional dog raiser and dog fighter."
Reed moved to correct sentence arguing (1) insufficiency of evidence (motion for judgment of acquittal), (2) § 775.082(10) violates Apprendi, and (3) the court’s public-danger finding was unsupported; the court corrected unrelated misdemeanor sentencing errors but otherwise denied relief.
The Second District affirmed Reed's convictions but reversed the upward departure sentence, holding the written findings did not establish the required nexus between imposing a nonstate prison sanction and the danger that would pose to the public under § 775.082(10).

Issue	Reed’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
1) Denial of motion for judgment of acquittal	Evidence was only circumstantial and consistent with Reed’s show-dog theory; acquittal warranted	Evidence sufficiently supported convictions; motion properly denied	Affirmed denial of acquittal (court affirmed convictions without comment)
2) § 775.082(10) unconstitutional under Apprendi	Finding public-danger to impose harsher sentence infringes jury sentencing factfinding under Apprendi	Court may make written findings under statute to permit prison despite point total; constitutionality not resolved here	Court did not resolve Apprendi issue (declined to reach)
3) Sufficiency of written findings of public danger under § 775.082(10)	Written findings showed Reed’s conduct and propensity justified upward departure to state prison	Findings described dangerous conduct and professional dogfighting, supporting departure	Reversed sentence: findings insufficient because they merely recited conduct underlying convictions and did not establish nexus why a nonstate sanction would endanger public

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (constitutional rule on facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986) (upward departure based solely on public-danger was impermissible prior to legislative change)
Mischler v. State, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986) (court cannot use inherent components of the crime to justify departure)
Bryant v. State, 148 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (describing § 775.082(10) as reinstating upward departure authority)
Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (interpreting nonstate prison sanction and stating purpose to keep certain offenders out of state prison)
Porter v. State, 110 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (upholding departure where court linked defendant’s recidivism and victim harm to danger if given nonstate sanction)
McCloud v. State, 55 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (upholding departure where extensive criminal history and demonstrated ongoing threat justified prison)