STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN RAY BRAY, 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 defendant was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm, and the State appealed his downward departure sentence. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor's closing arguments did not constitute fundamental error, but reversed and remanded the sentence because the trial court violated the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements of Florida's 10-20-Life statute.
The court found no merit in the defendant's conviction appeal, holding that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute fundamental error. The court reversed the sentence, holding that trial courts have no discretion to grant a downward departure motion when a conviction implicates the 10-20-Life statute's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements.
[1] A trial court has no discretion to grant a downward departure sentence when the conviction implicates the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme of the 10-20-Life statute.
[2] A conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm triggers the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements of the 10-20-Life statute.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The 10/20/Life statute, section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2005), removed most sentencing discretion from the judicial branch, and instead, placed it in the executive branch by establishing a mandatory minimum sentencing scheme.”
This quote establishes the legal framework that trial courts cannot exercise discretion in departing from mandatory minimums when the 10-20-Life statute applies.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State charged the defendant with aggravated assault with a firearm. The jury convicted him as charged, and the trial court adjudicated him guilty.…
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
In these consolidated appeals, the defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm. The State appeals the defendant’s downward departure sentence for that conviction. The defendant argues the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument constituted fundamental error. We disagree and affirm his conviction. The State argues the trial court erred when it failed to- impose the three-year mandatory minimum sentence under the 10-20-Life statute. The defendant candidly admits the sentencing error. We therefore affirm the defendant’s conviction in case number 14-0441, but reverse the defendant’s sentence in case number 13-4771, and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.
The facts underlying, the charge and trial are largely irrelevant to our decision. The State charged the defendant by information with aggravated assault with a firearm. The jury convicted the defendant as charged. The trial court adjudicated him guilty, but granted a downward departure motion and sentenced him to one year in county jail, two years’ community control, and two years’ probation over the State’s objection.
In the State’s appeal, it argues the trial court erred when it failed to impose the mandatory minimum sentence under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2013), due to the defendant’s use of a firearm *489during the aggravated assault. The defendant candidly agrees. Trial courts have no discretion to grant a motion for downward departure when the conviction implicates section 775.087(2). State v. Vanderhoff, 14 So.3d 1185, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“The 10/20/Life statute, section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2005), removed most sentencing discretion from the judicial branch, and instead, placed it in the executive branch by establishing a mandatory minimum sentencing scheme.”).
We find no merit in the defendant’s appeal of his conviction. We reverse his sentence on the State’s appeal, and remand the case to the trial court to re-sentence the defendant in accordance with section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2013).
Affirm Case No. 1⅛-0¼1. Reverse and Remand on Case No. 13-⅛771.
WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Profetto v. State, 198 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ownward on this basis. The postconviction court failed to address this portion of the claim. We note that the trial court would not have been able to impose a sentence less than the mandatory minimum under the 10-20-Life statute. See State v. Bray, 174 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, the court could have departed downward from the thirty-five-year sentence based on a codefendant’s lesser sentence if the two were equally culpable and there was not a great disparity in their criminal records. See…
-
State v. Bray, 211 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…l and two years of probation. In consolidated appeals, the defendant appealed his conviction and the State appealed the downward departure sentence. We affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded for resentenc-ing. State v. Bray, 174 So. 3d 488, 488-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court had no discretion to grant a motion for downward departure when the conviction arose under the Florida’s 10/20/Life statute). On remand, the trial court resentenced the defendant to the thre…
-
Brown v. State, 2017 WL 4392889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Vanderhoff, 14 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)