In a case stemming from a woman accused of shoplifting food, a state appeals court said Wednesday that juries must determine whether defendants "present a danger to the public" to justify tougher sentences.
Marlena Christine Woods was arrested for stealing food from a Jacksonville Wal-Mart store and was charged with a third-degree felony because she had previous convictions, according to the ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal.
Woods pleaded guilty to the felony charge and said at sentencing that she committed the crime to feed herself and her children, who had been homeless.
Under state guidelines, Woods could have been sentenced to serve up to 12 months in the county jail, but a circuit judge agreed with prosecutors that she posed a danger to the public because of her previous crimes. The judge sentenced her to 18 months in state prison.
Woods challenged a state law that the judge used in imposing the tougher sentence and contended that only a jury could make a finding that she posed a danger to the public.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court Wednesday agreed, finding that the "statute must be interpreted to require a jury finding that the defendant poses a risk of danger to society before a judge can impose a sentence which is more punitive than any non-prison sanction."
Nevertheless, the appeals court upheld Woods' sentence.
"Applying a harmless error analysis, we affirm appellant's (Woods') sentence, as no rational jury would have declined to find that she posed a financial danger to the public based on her three prior petit theft convictions, her prior burglary conviction, and the fact that she committed the instant offense (shoplifting the food) soon after her release from jail," said the 11-page ruling, written by appeals-court Judge Brad Thomas and joined by judges Susan Kelsey and William Stone.