Dubuc v. State
The Fifth DCA reversed an upward-departure prison sentence imposed under section 775.082(10) because the trial court, not a jury, made the required 'dangerousness' finding, violating Brown v. State and Apprendi. The court held the issue was properly preserved via a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion filed after sentencing, rejected the State's invited-error argument, and remanded for either a nonstate prison sanction or a jury dangerousness finding if requested by the State.
Key facts
- Defendant Dubuc received an upward-departure prison sentence under section 775.082(10) based on a dangerousness finding made by the trial court at sentencing.
- Dubuc challenged the sentence for the first time in a post-sentencing Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error, arguing the trial court—rather than a jury—made the required dangerousness finding.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces and clarifies that Brown/Apprendi challenges to upward departures under section 775.082(10) can be preserved through a post-sentencing Rule 3.800(b)2 motion, rejecting a State argument that such… — 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.