← Case library
5th DCAJanuary 28, 2025Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and remanded⭐ Notable

Denson v. State

Case No. 5D2024-1318

The Fifth DCA affirmed denial of Denson's 3.800(a) motion challenging his PRR sentence on Sixth Amendment/Apprendi grounds, holding it was bound by its prior decision in Simmons v. State that a judge, not a jury, may find the date-of-release fact for PRR purposes. The court reversed and remanded on a separate ground because the record did not conclusively refute Denson's claim that a mandatory minimum was illegally imposed on Count I. A lengthy special concurrence argues Simmons was wrongly decided in light of the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Erlinger v. United States, which narrowed the 'prior conviction' exception to Apprendi/Alleyne, and notes that a related case (Maye) is pending review before the Florida Supreme Court.

Key facts

  • Denson was convicted and sentenced; he filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) sentence on Sixth Amendment and Apprendi grounds, arguing a jury rather than a judge should determine the date-of-release fact.
  • The trial court denied the motion; Denson appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

While technically a routine affirmance under binding precedent, this opinion is valuable because the specially concurring opinion methodically critiques the Simmons line of PRR/Apprendi cases in light of the Supreme… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.