STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KENA R. MEASE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 a trial court lacks discretion to sentence a defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum for trafficking in methamphetamine.
The State appealed the trial court's sentencing of a defendant convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine below the statutory mandatory minimum. The …
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 Trafficking In Methamphetamine cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s sentencing of Appellee, Kena R. Mease, following her conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine. Mease cross-appeals her conviction and sentence, challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm the issue on cross-appeal without discussion. Finding that the trial court erred as a matter of law by sentencing Mease below the statutory mandatory minimum, we reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Section 893.135(l)(f)(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), provides that a person convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine in an amount greater than 28 grams, but less than 200 grams, “shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 7 years” and “shall be ordered to pay a fine of $100,000.” Interpreting see*162tion 893.135, our court, as well as every one of our sister courts, has concluded that the trial court lacks discretion to sentence a defendant below the mandatory minimum. See Plummer v. State, 121 So.3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); State v. DeMille, 890 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); State v. Delgado, 717 So.2d 1053, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d 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.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.
SAWAYA, COHEN, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jamido Pineirocaban v. State, 224 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…n a defendant is convicted of violating a statute that mandates the imposition of a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, the sentencing enhancement is nondiscretionary and “trial courts lack the authority to refuse to apply them.” State v. Mease, 200 So. 3d 161, 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting State v. Kremer, 114 So. 3d 420, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)). Our review of the legality of the sentence is de novo. Pinkard v. State, 185 So. 3d 1289, 1289-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“The legality of a sentence is a ques…
-
State v. Beaman (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Tucker v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- State v. ROW, 478 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Kremer, 114 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- State v. Delgado, 717 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Demille, 890 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Plummer v. State, 121 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)