Case Name: Frank Landon ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-12-22
Citations: 206 So.3d 842
Docket Number: Case No. 5D16-1914
Parties: Frank Landon ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 206
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
Frank Landon ADAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 5D16-1914
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed December 22, 2016
Frank Landon Adams, Jr., Cross City, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Frank Landon Adams, Jr., is appealing the postconviction court's denial of his "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence" filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
In Ground One, Sub-Claim One, Adams asserts that his sentence is illegal because the trial judge, as opposed to the jury before whom he was tried, made the finding that he was a danger to the public. Adams further claimed that by doing so, the trial court circumvented the statutory maximum sentence in section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2012), and disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Ap-prendi and Blakely, The lower court appears to have misconstrued Adams' claim because in denying relief, the court simply found that Adams' upward departure sentence was legal because the trial judge found Adams to be a danger to the public. The lower court failed to address Adams' allegation of an Apprendi/Blakely violation. We reverse and remand as to this ground with instructions for the trial court to consider and rule on the merits of Adams' Apprendi/Blakely claim. We affirm all other issues without further discussion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
COHEN, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct, 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).
. Appellant did not address Ground Two of his motion in his brief; therefore, it is deemed to be abandoned. See Ward v. State, 19 So.3d 1060, 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).