Case Name: James HUDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-10-10
Citations: 800 So. 2d 627
Docket Number: No. 3D99-3007
Parties: James HUDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 800
Pages: 627–630

Head Matter:
James HUDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D99-3007.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 10, 2001.
Order Withdrawing Panel Opinion and Adopting Special Concurrence on Grant of Rehearing Nov. 21, 2001.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Shaundra L. Kellam, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Darien M. Doe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
RAMIREZ, J.
James Hudson appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for throwing a deadly missile into a hotel lobby. We reverse because Hudson was improperly sentenced to an extended term of imprisonment as a violent career criminal where the jury verdict did not authorize such a sentence.
The trial court judge sentenced Hudson as a violent career criminal to forty years in prison with a thirty year minimum mandatory term, pursuant to section 775.084(1), Florida Statutes (1998). Section 775.084(l)(c) allows the trial court judge to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment as a violent career criminal if it finds that both the charged offense qualifies and at least three of the defendant's prior felonies also qualify. The charged offense, throwing a deadly missile, is not one of the specified offenses. Thus, to qualify under the statute, this offense must be a "forcible felony" as defined in section 776.08, Florida Statutes (1997).
To qualify under section 776.08 as a forcible felony, the crime must involve "the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." Before the United States Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the trial court could make this determination if it was established by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.084(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1998). Apprendi now requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, the jury never made any finding that the building in this case was occupied, or that there was the use or threat of physical force against the victim. In addition, the use or threat of physical force against any individual is not a necessary element of the charged offense because throwing a deadly missile under section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1998), constitutes a crime whether the building is occupied or unoccupied. Clearly, there is no violence against an individual inherent in throwing a missile into an unoccupied building. The trial court judge, therefore, had no basis on which to sentence Hudson beyond the statutory maximum since the Apprendi requirements were not met.
Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
SORONDO, J., concurs.
. In fairness to the trial judge, it should be pointed out that Apprendi was decided after Hudson was sentenced in this case.