STATE v. BARNHART (2020)

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.

Per Curiam.

Makar, Osterhaus, and Nordby, JJ., concur.