MICHAEL FLOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court has discretion under section 775.087(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes, to impose a minimum mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, even if it exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense.
[1] Section 775.087(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes, grants trial courts discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence ranging from twenty-five years to life imprisonment.
[2] Specific statutory provisions regarding mandatory minimum sentences prevail over general statutory provisions concerning maximum sentences.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Flowers was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm, resulting in great bodily harm. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment…
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 10-20-Life Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Flowers appeals his life sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm.* He argues the sentence, which in-*1043eludes a minimum mandatory term of life in prison, is illegal because section 775.087(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, limits the minimum mandatory period to twenty-five years. We affirm the sentence under the authority of Mendenhall v. State, 48 So.3d 740 (Fla.2010).
A jury found Flowers guilty of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. On Count I, the jury found he discharged the firearm while committing the crime, causing great bodily harm to victim James Johnson. On Count II, the jury found only that he discharged the firearm during commission of the crime. At sentencing, the trial court deemed Flowers a habitual felony offender. On Count I, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment. It further found the criteria in section 775.087(2)(a)3 satisfied, and imposed a minimum mandatory life sentence. As to Count II, the court determined that section 775.087(2)(a)2 applied, and it sentenced Flowers to twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Flowers challenges only the sentence imposed for Count I.
The statute the trial court relied on in setting the minimum mandatory portion of Flowers’ sentence is section 775.087, commonly known as the 10-20-Life statute. Under the statute, a person who commits any of the enumerated felonies is subject to specific mandatory prison terms if, while committing the offense, she or he possesses a firearm, discharges a firearm, or causes death or great bodily harm as a result of discharging a firearm. The statutory language at issue here reads:
Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)l.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 and, as the result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, the convicted person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison.
§ 775.087(2)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Flowers argues this provision only permits a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence. Mendenhall holds otherwise.
The question in Mendenhall was whether the trial court could impose a thirty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence under section 775.087(2)(a)3 for attempted second-degree murder with a firearm when the maximum sentence for that offense is thirty years under section 775.082(3)(b)-(c). 48 So.3d at 742. The supreme court concluded first that “the specific provisions of section 775.087(2)(a)(3) prevail over the general provisions of the [sic] 775.082 regarding statutory máximums.” 48 So.3d at 748. The court then construed the statutory language highlighted supra to mean “the trial court has discretion to impose a mandatory minimum within the range of twenty-five years to life.” 48 So.3d at 750 *1044(emphasis added). “[W]e conclude that the trial court has discretion under section 775.087(2)(a)(3) to impose a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years to life, even if that mandatory minimum exceeds the statutory maximum provided for in section 775.082.” 48 So.3d at 742. Accordingly, the court upheld the thirty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence under review. Id.
The question in this case simply is whether imposition of a minimum mandatory life term is permissible under the 10-20-Life statute. Applying Mendenhall, the trial court had the discretion under section 775.087(2)(a)3 to impose a minimum mandatory term anywhere within the range of twenty-five years to life in prison. This it could have done even if the minimum mandatory term exceeded the statutory maximum for the offense. Accordingly, we affirm Flowers’ life sentence, with a minimum mandatory of life, for aggravated battery with a firearm.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 189 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…court revisits and changes course from its decision in Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740, 750 (Fla.2010), whose holding our court applied to validate the trial court’s discretionary imposition of a “minimum mandatory life term” in Flowers v. State, 69 So. 3d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Reasonable alternative interpretations of the sentencing statutes at issue in these cases exist, resulting in the 4-3 decision in Menden-hall as well as. the interpretive conflict between this case and Wilkerson (which did…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 232 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 2017)…t’s decision in Wilkerson on the basis that it “provides no analysis of how it reached its conclusion that a trial court cannot impose more than a 25-year mandatory minimum on a second-degree felony.” The trial court also relied on Flowers v. State, 69 So. 3d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), in which the First District concluded that the “25 to life” provision in Florida’s 10-20-Life statute permitted a trial court to impose a mandatory minimum life sentence for a second-degree felony. The trial court noted th…
-
Akhnaten Casey v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha L. Ward, Judge. Akhnaten Casey, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010); Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Flowers v. State, 69 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Coke v. State, 955 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Lykins v. State, 894 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 778 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and SALARIO,JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Corey v. Corey, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010)
- Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010)
- Flowers v. State, 965 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Flowers v. State, 36 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)