Rodriguez-Aguilar v. State, 198 So. 3d 792

Background

Rodriguez-Aguilar pleaded to a third-degree felony (failure to redeliver leased property) in 2012, received a withhold of adjudication and 18 months probation with restitution.
In Dec. 2013 he was arrested; police found a loaded firearm on him and alleged he had driven a reported-stolen vehicle, triggering new charges and a probation-violation affidavit alleging grand theft of an automobile, burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, and failure to pay restitution.
A nonjury revocation hearing (Mar. 6, 2014) found the firearm-based violation proved but not the burglary/theft; the court revoked probation and immediately sentenced him to five years’ state prison under section 775.082(10).
His sentencing scoresheet on the violation totaled 13 points (below the 22-point threshold under the Criminal Punishment Code for mandatory state prison), and the court provided no contemporaneous oral findings justifying an upward departure under § 775.082(10).
Six days after sentencing the court entered written findings invoking § 775.082(10) that a nonstate sanction could present a danger to the public; those findings relied on (1) alleged multiple serious probation violations, (2) a pattern of criminal activity despite unproven allegations, and (3) allegedly false testimony by defendant.
The appellate court concluded the written findings were unsupported by the record, raised due process and Sixth Amendment concerns (no notice or opportunity to contest the factual finding), and reversed the prison sentence, directing imposition of a nonstate prison sanction on remand per Bryant v. State.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez-Aguilar)	Held
Whether court properly imposed state prison under § 775.082(10) despite scoresheet below 22 points	Upward departure permitted if court makes written findings that nonstate sanction could present a danger to the public	Sentence unlawful: no adequate written/oral findings supported by record; defendant had no notice or chance to contest	Reversed: written findings unsupported; nonstate sanction required on remand
Whether findings may rely on alleged but unproven prior offenses or probable-cause-level allegations	Court relied on arrest and allegations to predict future danger	Such predictions require proof by preponderance; probable cause or unproven allegations insufficient	Finding of future danger cannot rest on allegations not proved by preponderance
Whether defendant’s testimony (alleged falsehoods) can justify upward departure as evidence of future dangerousness	Court treated alleged lies as indicia of danger and multiple violations	Testimony untruthfulness alone is not competent evidence to predict future public danger and is improper to penalize	Court erred treating alleged false testimony as sufficient to justify prison under § 775.082(10)
Whether procedures satisfied due process and sentencing formalities (oral pronouncement/notice/right to present evidence)	Post-sentencing written findings suffice to satisfy statute	Defendant lacked notice, opportunity to contest, and oral findings at sentencing—creating due process and Sixth Amendment problems	Procedural failures are troubling; defendant entitled to nonstate sanction where findings invalid or procedurally defective

Key Cases Cited

Bryant v. State, 148 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (interpreting § 775.082(10) and requiring written findings to justify an upward departure to prison)
Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial-court written findings inadequate to support prison sentence under § 775.082(10))
Dinkines v. State, 122 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (relying on unproven or acquitted offenses is improper to justify § 775.082(10) findings)
Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990) (due-process and oral-articulation principles for departure sentencing)
Lambert v. State, 545 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1989) (limits on using same act to justify multiple sentencing enhancements)