Sentencing for a violation of probation constitutes a resentencing for the original offense. See Shields v. State, 296 So.3d 967 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2020). [1][2] Violation of probations findings that enhance the maximum sentence need to be submitted to a jury. See Klick v. State, 393 So.3d 820 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).[3] This equally applies to findings that increase the minimum sentence as well. See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. (2013). The United States Supreme Court has found that mandatory sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional, where they considered factors not found by a jury, except a prior conviction. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).[4]
In a plurality opinion, in Haymond, the United States Supreme Court stated a violation of supervised release that raises the minimum or mandatory sentence must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. V. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019)
Haymond was convicted of possessing child pornography, a crime that carries a prison term of zero to 10 years. After serving a prison sentence of 38 months, and while on supervised release, Mr. Haymond was again found with what appeared to be child pornography... Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the judge could have sentenced him to a prison term of between zero and two additional years. But because possession of child pornography is an enumerated offense under § 3583(k), the judge instead imposed that provision's 5-year mandatory minimum.
As at the time of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' adoption, a judge's sentencing authority derives from, and is limited by, the jury's factual findings of criminal conduct. A jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt every fact "`which the law makes essential to [a] punishment'" that a judge might later seek to impose. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 304, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403.
The lesson for this case is clear: Based solely on the facts reflected in the jury's verdict, Mr. Haymond faced a lawful prison term of between zero and 10 years. But just like the facts the judge found at the defendant's sentencing hearing in Alleyne, the facts the judge found here increased "the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences" in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. [See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) ].
Still, these decisions left an important gap. In Apprendi, this Court recognized that "`[i]t is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties.'" 530 U.S. at 490, 120 2378*2378 S.Ct. 2348. But by definition, a range of punishments includes not only a maximum but a minimum. And logically it would seem to follow that any facts necessary to increase a person's minimum punishment (the "floor") should be found by the jury no less than facts necessary to increase his maximum punishment (the "ceiling").
Based on the facts reflected in the jury's verdict, Mr. Haymond faced a lawful prison term of between zero and 10 years under § 2252(b)(2). But then a judge— acting without a jury and based only on a preponderance of the evidence—found that Mr. Haymond had engaged in additional conduct in violation of the terms of his supervised release. Under § 3583(k), that judicial factfinding triggered a new punishment in the form of a prison term of at least five years and up to life. So just like the facts the judge found at the defendant's sentencing hearing in Alleyne, the facts the judge found here increased "the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences" in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Id., at 115, 133 S.Ct. 2151.
Although Haymond is only a plurality Florida in Hollingsworth v. State, 293 So.3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) has interpreted Haymond the holding in Haymond as being as the following:
[T]he Supreme Court's decision was narrow:
As at the initial sentencing hearing, that does not mean a jury must find every fact in a revocation hearing that may affect the judge's exercise of discretion within the range of punishments authorized by the jury's verdict. But it does mean that a jury must find any facts that trigger a new mandatory minimum prison term.
Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2380 (footnotes omitted).
This means that not everything the judge considers needs to be submitted to the jury, but anything that would set a minimum or a maximum permissible sentence, such as a guideline sentence, must be submitted to the jury.
1 “Probation revocation and sentencing are distinct events. See Tasker v. State, 48 So. 3d 798, 805 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that a "sentencing after revocation of probation is a `deferred sentencing proceeding'" in determining whether a sentencing error is reviewable in an appeal from a revocation order (citing Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 1985))); State v. Hicks, 478 So. 2d 22, 23 n.* (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (noting that "a probation revocation usually leads to sentencing" and that "an attorney is required at a sentencing proceeding" in determining whether an attorney should be required at a revocation proceeding). And as we have shown, a sentencing after a revocation of probation is, for all intents and purposes, just a resentencing on the original offense.
2 Footnote 2 states: In United States v. Haymond, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 204 L.Ed.2d 897 (2019), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a federal statute requiring an additional prison term of five years when a defendant on supervised release commits one of several enumerated offenses was unconstitutional under Apprendi…”
3 In Klick the Defendant received 4 years on a VOP, but he scored less than 22 points, which capped his sentence at a year in jail absent a finding he could present a danger to the public. The Court in Klick remanded the case with direction to impose a nonstate prison sentence or empanel a jury to make the finding as to whether he imposed a danger to the public.
4 The federal sentencing guidelines that were found to be unconstitutional in Booker allowed they judge to depart downwards based on certain findings similar to the Florida sentencing guidelines.
