VALDASE L. BARNHART
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 a defendant convicted of fraud and grand theft, who appealed the denial of her motion for acquittal. The State cross-appealed the trial court's decision to withhold a mandatory minimum sentence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction denial but reversed the sentencing decision, ordering the mandatory sentence be imposed.
Yes, the trial court erred by withholding the mandatory minimum sentence. The statute clearly requires a three-year minimum incarceration for this offense, and the trial court lacked the authority to deviate from this mandate.
[1] A trial court lacks discretion to withhold, suspend, or refuse to impose a mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by statute, as such sentencing enhancements are nondiscre…
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“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.””
This quote establishes the statutory requirement for a mandatory minimum 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 found guilty of fraudulent use of personal identification and grand theft, with the jury finding the fraud amount was $5,000 or m…
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 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. _____________________________