Toriano A. Brooks v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-3198
LT Case No. 2021-303299-CFDB
_____________________________
TORIANO A. BROOKS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
Karen A. Foxman, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton,
Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M.
Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
December 12, 2025
EISNAUGLE, J.
We affirm Toriano Brooks’s judgment and sentence and write
to explain why his Prison Releasee Reoffender (“PRR”) sentence
does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

2
On appeal, Brooks argues that his PRR sentence is
unconstitutional because a jury did not determine the date of his
release from prison. While a jury did not make the finding, Brooks
is not entitled to relief because he stipulated to the dispositive facts
at sentencing:
The Court: And is there a stipulation from the defense?
Counsel: Yes, I discussed that with my client and we
stipulate that he was released June 5, 2021. This offense
occurred June 20, 2021, so that would be within that
three-year period.
Some courts have employed a harmless error analysis when
an Apprendi claim is based on stipulated facts. E.g., Flournoy v.
State, 415 So. 3d 806, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025). However, we
conclude a harmless error analysis is unnecessary because a
sentence based on a defendant’s stipulation does not violate
Apprendi in the first place.
The Sixth Amendment requires that, “[o]ther than the fact of
a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime
beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a
jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S.
at 490. Importantly, the statutory maximum is defined, for
Apprendi purposes, as the “sentence a judge may impose solely on
the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the
defendant.” Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004).
Under Blakely, the judge in this case had authority to impose
a PRR sentence without a jury’s determination because Brooks
admitted the facts that qualified him as a prison releasee
reoffender. Therefore, the sentence imposed was not “beyond the
prescribed statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes.1
1 Brooks also cannot prevail on appeal because in Simmons v.
State, 332 So. 3d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), we held that the
factual findings required to impose a PRR sentence may be made
by the judge, instead of a jury. Our decision in Simmons remains
binding, but we recognize that our sister court followed Simmons
in Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531, 532 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), and that

3
Accordingly, Brooks’s sentence does not violate Apprendi, and
his judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LAMBERT and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Maye is currently under review in the Florida Supreme Court. See
Maye v. State, No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25,
2024).