Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
FRANK LANDON ADAMS, JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant, Frank Landon Adams, Jr., is appealing the postconviction court's denial of his “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence” filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
In Ground One, Sub-Claim One, Adams asserts that his sentence is illegal because the trial judge, as opposed to the jury before whom he was tried, made the finding that he was a danger to the public. Adams further claimed that by doing so, the trial court circumvented the statutory maximum sentence in section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2012), and disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Apprendi and Blakely.1 The lower court appears to have misconstrued Adams' claim because in denying relief, the court simply found that Adams' upward departure sentence was legal because the trial judge found Adams to be a danger to the public. The lower court failed to address Adams' allegation of an Apprendi/Blakely violation. We reverse and remand as to this ground with instructions for the trial court to consider and rule on the merits of Adams' Apprendi/Blakely claim. We affirm all other issues without further discussion.2
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
FOOTNOTES
1. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
2. Appellant did not address Ground Two of his motion in his brief; therefore, it is deemed to be abandoned. See Ward v. State, 19 So. 3d 1060, 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
PER CURIAM.
COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D16-1914
Decided: December 22, 2016
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)