Sentencing Guidelines and Statutory Maximums in Florida: How Best to Respond to Apprendi

In 2000, the US Supreme Court made an important decision in the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey that could affect how sentencing guidelines are used in Florida. The decision may have overruled a previous decision by the Florida Supreme Court, and limited the impact of certain statutory language. This means that guideline sentences in Florida may now be able to exceed the maximum sentence allowed by law. As a result, it’s suggested that the quoted language in the law be repealed. In the case Mays v. State, Albert Mays was convicted of aggravated assault for pulling a knife on someone and threatening to kill them. His guideline sentence was 67.8 months, even though the maximum sentence for his crime was only 60 months. Mays argued that he should not have a sentence longer than 60 months, but the Florida Supreme Court disagreed, saying that the guideline sentence could be longer than the maximum. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later had a different opinion in the case Apprendi v. New Jersey. In that case, Charles Apprendi was convicted of possessing a firearm for an unlawful purpose and received a longer sentence because it was determined to be a hate crime. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any factor that leads to a longer sentence must be decided by a jury, not a judge. Apprendi argued in court that his sentence violated his rights. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, ruling that any fact that increases a penalty beyond the maximum must be decided by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This could have an impact on guideline sentencing laws in Florida. The Florida Legislature said that a guideline sentence can be longer than the maximum allowed by law, but the courts have said they can’t do that. So now, a jury has to decide if a person’s sentence is longer than the maximum based on certain facts, instead of a judge deciding at sentencing. This means that things like how badly the victim was hurt, if the defendant was in jail or on probation at the time, if they had a gun, if they were in a gang, or if they committed domestic violence in front of a child, all have to be decided by a jury now. Because of a recent court decision, Florida may need to change the way it determines sentences for criminals. One option is to have the jury consider certain factors during the trial, or to hold a separate sentencing proceeding after the trial. Another option is for prosecutors to agree to a sentence that isn’t higher than the maximum allowed by law. This would avoid the need for new procedures. It’s likely that prosecutors will choose this option in most cases. The legislature can fix the problem by changing the law to make sure that judges can still use sentencing guidelines but can’t give a sentence higher than the maximum allowed by law. This way, the system can still work the same way it did before, but with better protection for people’s rights. It won’t really cost the state much in terms of punishment. Florida cannot avoid the impact of the Apprendi v. New Jersey ruling by simply raising the maximum sentences for crimes. The Court has implied that this tactic would be considered unconstitutional. Florida needs to accept the ruling and make changes to its laws to comply with it. This means abandoning certain language in the law and returning to the previous rule that guideline sentences cannot exceed the statutory maximum.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/sentencing-guidelines-and-statutory-maximums-in-florida-how-best-to-respond-to-apprendi/