STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
VALDASE L. BARNHART
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal by the State of Florida regarding a trial court's decision to withhold a mandatory minimum sentence for a conviction of fraudulent use of personal identification. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed.
Yes, the trial court erred. The statute mandates a three-year minimum sentence for this offense, and the court lacked the authority to withhold its imposition.
[1] A trial court lacks discretion to withhold or suspend a mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by statute and must impose the full mandatory minimum term upon conviction o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A conviction on the count of fraudulent use of personal information requires the imposition of a three-year term of incarceration.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValdase Barnhart was convicted of fraudulent use of personal identification and grand theft. The jury found the amount of fraud to be $5,000 or more, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withholding Imposition Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Valdase Barnhart was charged with one count of fraudulent use of personal identification information and one count of grand theft. She was found guilty on both counts and a jury unanimously agreed that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of the fraud perpetrated was $5,000 or more. A conviction on the count of fraudulent use of personal information requires the imposition of a three-year term of incarceration. See § 817.568(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2020).
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court adjudicated Barnhart guilty of both counts, but held the imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence in abeyance. Barnhart now appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal; the State appeals the trial court’s withholding of imposition of sentence on the count of fraudulent use of personal information.
We affirm as to Barnhart’s appeal, but reverse and remand for resentencing as to the State’s appeal. By statute, for any person convicted of fraudulent use of personal identification, “the court shall sentence any person convicted of committing the offense . . . to a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.” § 817.568(2)(b), Fla. Stat. As the Legislature has prescribed a three-year mandatory minimum, the trial court had no authority to do otherwise. See State v. Kremer, 114 So. 3d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements are nondiscretionary and, therefore, trial courts lack the authority to refuse to apply them”).
Accordingly, we remand for resentencing to include the mandatory minimum term. MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________