“Prison for a Traffic Ticket?”: When the Judge Ignores the “Under 22 Points” Rule

By: John Guidry

July 1, 2009, marked a tiny victory for criminal defense attorneys (and freedom-loving citizens). That was the day Section 775.082(10) of the Florida Statutes went into effect.

• The Rule: It forces courts to give defendants a non-state prison sentence if they score 22 points or fewer on their punishment code scoresheet.
• The Rarity: It is a rare piece of legislation that actually lowers punishment. (Now, can we please extend this trend to Pill Trafficking minimum mandatories? Orlando seems to be the mecca for those).

The Problem: If everyone knows about this rule, why do some judges (and defense attorneys) miss it? Sometimes, the system is so used to handing out prison time that they forget they can’t do it for certain low-level offenders.

Did the Judge sentence you to prison despite a low score?

The law might forbid it. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Hutto v. State (The 14-Point Prison Sentence)

The case of Hutto v. State, 50 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), is a prime example of the system asleep at the wheel.

• The Facts: Hutto was charged with Felony Driving While License Suspended (Habitual Traffic Offender).
• The Score: He scored 14.1 points on his sentencing scoresheet.
• The Sentence: Despite the low score, the Judge sentenced him to 18 Months in Prison (Department of Corrections) as part of a plea deal.

The Error: The Trial Court apparently didn’t read the statute.

• The Law: Section 775.082(10) states that for a third-degree felony (non-forcible) committed after July 1, 2009, if the total points are 22 or fewer, the court “MUST sentence the offender to a nonstate prison sanction.”

The “Danger” Loophole (and How to Close It)

Now, there is one loophole. The statute says:

“However, if the court makes written findings that a nonstate prison sanction could present a danger to the public, the court may sentence the offender to a state correctional facility.”

The Ruling in Hutto: In Hutto’s case, the Judge sentenced him to prison but failed to make written findings that Hutto was a danger to the public.

• The Result: The Appeals Court overturned the 18-month prison sentence.
• The Takeaway: You cannot send a low-scorer to prison just because you feel like it. You must prove—in writing—that they are dangerous. Since Hutto was just driving on a suspended license, it’s hard to argue he was a public menace worthy of hard time.

Note: This was a plea deal, meaning Hutto’s own lawyer missed this law too. At least now you know.

John’s 2026 Update: AI Risk Assessments & “Danger”

Note: In 2010, the Judge had to write a paragraph explaining why you were dangerous. In 2026, a computer does it for them.

1. The “Algorithmic” Danger Finding In 2026, prosecutors use AI tools (like the updated COMPAS-II system) to bypass the “Under 22 Points” rule.

• The Tactic: They run your data through the AI. If it flags you as “High Risk for Recidivism,” they print that report and hand it to the Judge.
• The Argument: They claim this AI report satisfies the “Written Finding of Danger” requirement.
• The Defense: We fight this aggressively. We argue that a computer prediction is not a factual finding of danger. We demand the underlying data to prove the AI is biased or incorrect.

2. “Smart” House Arrest (The New Non-State Sanction) The statute requires a “non-state prison sanction.”

• The 2026 Reality: This doesn’t always mean “freedom.” It often means “E-Incarceration.”
• The Tech: You stay home, but you are fitted with a Biometric Ankle Monitor that records your conversations and tracks your heart rate. It isn’t prison, but it feels like it. We negotiate for true probation, not digital imprisonment.

3. Retroactive Sentencing Relief With prison overcrowding at an all-time high in 2026, Florida has expanded the “Under 22” rule.

• The Change: There are now motions available to retroactively apply this standard to older non-violent cases to get people out of prison early. If you are sitting on a low-point sentence from years ago, we might be able to get you resentenced.

Do the Math

If you score under 22 points, prison should be off the table unless the State can prove you are dangerous. Don’t let them ignore the calculator.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s score your sheet.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.