STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RYAN C. KREMER, 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.
Florida appealed a downward departure sentence imposed on Ryan Kremer for DUI manslaughter, arguing the trial court failed to impose the mandatory minimum four-year prison sentence required by statute. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, holding that sentences below the statutory mandatory minimum are illegal and that trial courts lack discretion to impose downward departures in such cases.
The court held that the defendant's sentence is illegal because it does not include the mandatory minimum four-year term of imprisonment required by Florida Statute § 316.193(3). Trial courts lack discretion to refuse to apply mandatory minimum sentencing requirements, and a sentence shorter than the required mandatory minimum violates the law.
[1] A conviction for DUI manslaughter requires a mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment by statute.
[2] A sentence shorter than the required mandatory minimum sentence is considered an illegal sentence.
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 intelligence“A person who is convicted of DUI manslaughter shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for 4 years.”
Establishes the unambiguous statutory requirement that mandates a minimum four-year sentence for DUI manslaughter convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRyan Kremer entered an open guilty plea to DUI manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him to two years' imprisonment followed by two years' community…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the downward departure sentence imposed on Ryan Kremer (defendant), following his guilty plea to a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) manslaughter1. Determining that the defendant’s sentence is illegal because it does not include the mandatory minimum term required by statute, we reverse.
Following the defendant’s entry of an open plea of guilty to the charge of DUI manslaughter, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a downward departure sentence consisting of two years’ imprisonment followed by two years’ community control followed by eleven years’ probation. The State contends that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to impose the mandatory minimum four-year sentence required by statute for the defendant’s conviction for DUI manslaughter. We agree.
In State v. Schumacher, 99 So.3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), the State appealed a sentence imposed on the defendant after his conviction for DUI manslaughter, arguing that the sentence was illegal because it did not include a four-year mandatory minimum prison sentence. The First District agreed:
Section 316.193(3), Florida Statutes (2009), states, “A person who is convicted of DUI manslaughter shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for 4 years.”
The legislative language is unambiguous. The sentence imposed is, therefore, illegal. See State v. Strazdins, 890 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“When a trial court imposes a sentence that is shorter than the required mandatory minimum sentence, ‘the sentence is not within the limits prescribed by law and is properly viewed as an ‘illegal’ sentence.’” (quoting State v. R.F., 648 So.2d 293, 294 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995))).
The First District thereafter affirmed its ruling in State v. Schroff, 103 So.3d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
Our court has similarly held that mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements are nondiscretionary and, therefore, trial courts lack the authority to refuse to apply them. State v. Moore, 854 So.2d 832, 833-34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also Termitus v. State, 86 So.3d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Dunbar v. State, 46 So.3d 81, 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), rev’d on other grounds, 89 So.3d 901 (Fla.2012). Furthermore, when a sentence is illegal, the error is fundamental. State v. Valera, 75 So.3d 330, 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), and a sentence is illegal when it is shorter than the required mandatory minimum sentence. State v. Strazdins, 890 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is reversed, and this matter is remanded for re-sentencing to include the statutory four-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J. and BERGER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Donnell LEE Ingram, 299 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…While the State did not raise a specific objection as to the legality of the sentence, the court’s failure to impose the mandatory minimum term constituted an illegal sentence and may be challenged for the first time on appeal. See State v. Kremer, 114 So. 3d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“[W]hen a sentence is illegal, the error is fundamental, and a sentence is illegal when it is shorter than the required mandatory minimum sentence.” (first citing State v. Valera, 75 So. 3d 330, 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); and…
-
State v. Kena R. Mease, 200 So. 3d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…DCA 1990); State v. Row, 478 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). As our court has explained, “mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements are nondiscretionary and, therefore, trial courts lack the authority to refuse to apply them.” State v. Kremer, 114 So. 3d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citations omitted). Based on the foregoing, we reverse Mease’s sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine and remand for resentencing in accordance with the statutory mandatory minimum. We affirm in all other respects.…
-
State v. Woodall, 216 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…cluding aggravated battery, and discharging a firearm during the commission of that offense. “[Mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements áre nondis-cretionary and, therefore, trial courts lack the authority to refuse to apply them.” State v. Kremer, 114 So. 3d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing State v, Moore, 854 So. 2d 832, 833-34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). The mandatory minimum sentence must be supported by a “clear jury finding” that Woodall discharged a firearm during the offense, which “can be demonstrated…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 2012)
- State v. Valera, 75 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- State v. Strazdins, 890 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- State v. R.F., 648 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Locklear v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 854 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Dunbar v. State, 46 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Luc Termitus v. State, 86 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- State v. Schumacher, 99 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Scott v. U.S. Bank, 103 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- State v. Franziska Schroff, 103 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)