Opinion ID: 2538196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: analysis

Text: The doctrine of in pari materia is a principle of statutory construction that requires that statutes relating to the same subject or object be construed together to harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature's intent. Fla. Dep't of State v. Martin, 916 So.2d 763, 768 (Fla. 2005). Similarly, related statutory provisions must be read together to achieve a consistent whole, and ... `[w]here possible, courts must give full effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another.' Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101, 106 (Fla.2008) (quoting Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189, 199 (Fla.2007)). The issue in this case is one of statutory construction that involves the interplay between section 775.087(2), which authorizes mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, and section 775.082, which authorizes a maximum sentence of thirty years for the conviction of a first-degree felony. Section 775.087 is meant to be read together with other sentencing statutes such as section 775.082 and is not its own self-contained sentencing scheme. The statute clearly contemplates interplay between itself and other statutes. The Legislature even provided guidance as to how the statute should be read together with section 775.082. See § 775.087(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004) (explicitly addressing situations where the mandatory minimum is either more or less than the statutory maximums provided for elsewhere and specifically referencing section 775.082). Thus, we must read section 775.087(2)(a)(3) together with sections 775.087(2)(c) and 775.082. The majority ignores the principle of reading the statutes together and instead utilizes the statutory construction principle that a specific statute controls over the general. However, the statutes address different things and are meant to be read together as indicated by section 775.087(2)(c)section 775.087(2) specifies mandatory minimums whereas section 775.082 specifies statutory maximums. Simply put, although section 775.087 is specific as to statutory minimums, it is not specific as to statutory maximums. Under section 775.087(2)(c), if the  minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this section exceed the maximum sentences authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed. § 775.087(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). On the other hand, if the  mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment... are less than the sentences that could be imposed as authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, then the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required in this section. Id. (emphasis added). Based on section 775.087(2)(c), the minimum sentence to be imposed under 775.087 does not trump the statutory maximum provided in 775.082 unless the minimum sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. It does not change the statutory maximum or negate it all together. This section is in keeping with the title of the chapter, which addresses minimum sentences. The title of a chapter is properly considered in determining legislative intent. Horowitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship, 959 So.2d 176, 182 (Fla. 2007) (considering the title of the chapter as reflecting the Legislature's intent); see also Larimore, 2 So.3d at 112 ([T]he title of an act is properly considered in determining legislative intent.). Here, the title of the chapter evinces a legislative intent to mandate significant statutory minimum sentences, not new statutory maximums irrespective of the statutory maximums provided for elsewhere. This brings us to the interpretation of the statutory minimum terms provided in section 775.087(2)(a). The first two subsections, (2)(a)(1) and (2)(a)(2), are clear and unambiguous and provide for statutory minimum terms of a specific number of years. Subsection (2)(a)(1) provides that a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years and in certain other circumstances to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years. Subsection (2)(a)(2) provides that a person who is convicted of certain felonies or attempted felonies and uses the firearm during the course of the commission of the felony shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years. Therefore, when subsections (2)(a)(1) and (2)(a)(2) are read in conjunction with subsection (2)(c) and section 775.082, it is easy to determine in what circumstances the minimum term specified is greater than the statutory maximum or when the mandatory minimum is less than the statutory maximum. It is also clear as to how many years should be imposed or included as the mandatory minimum. The clash between the statutory maximums of section 775.082 and the minimum sentences of 775.087 occurs when applying section 775.087(2)(a)(3), which is the only subsection to provide for a range. Subsection (2)(a)(3) provides that a person who discharges a firearm causing death or great bodily harm shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison. While it is clear that a sentence of at least twenty-five years must be imposed as a minimum in all circumstances, it is not clear whether the trial court can impose a minimum term in excess of the statutory maximum of thirty years in this case. An examination of the language of section 775.087(2)(c) reveals another ambiguity: the phrase the mandatory minimum sentence as used in subsection (2)(c) and as applied to subsection (2)(a)(3) is ambiguous because it is not clear whether it refers only to the absolute minimum sentence that must be imposed (twenty-five years) or to the entire range. Further, by explicitly stating that statutory maximums in other statutes are trumped by the section 775.087 statutory minimums when the minimum sentence exceeds the statutory maximums, the Legislature failed to address what occurs where there is a range of sentencing options, as there is in section 775.087(2)(a)(3). In this case, the statutory maximum is thirty years, whereas the sentencing range is twenty-five to life. Whether the range is meant to be considered as exceeding the statutory maximum is unclear. The majority concludes that the trial court has discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years to life, irrespective of the maximum penalty on the underlying charge under section 775.082. This interpretation nullifies the statutory maximums of section 775.082, without any indication that the Legislature intended for this nullification to occur. Because the statute is ambiguous as to legislative intent regarding statutory maximums, I conclude that it must be construed most favorably to Mendenhall. As this Court has stated, the rule of lenity is not just an interpretive tool, but a statutory directive. The rule requires that `[a]ny ambiguity or situations in which statutory language is susceptible to differing constructions must be resolved in favor of the person charged with an offense.' Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 814 (Fla. 2008) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Byars, 823 So.2d 740, 742 (Fla.2002)). If the Legislature intended to allow trial courts the discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of life even if the statutory maximum is much less, it was incumbent upon the Legislature to make that intent clear. In my view, this reading of the statute does not render the phrase and not more than ... life mere surplusage as the majority contends. Here, Mendenhall was convicted of a second-degree felony that was then enhanced to a first-degree felony, which carries a maximum sentence of thirty years. Thus, the phrase and not more than ... life would not apply to this case. However, the majority overlooks situations where the phrase would apply. For example, if a defendant is convicted of a first-degree felony that is enhanced by the 10-20-Life statute to a life felony, see § 775.087(1)(a), Fla. Stat., the maximum sentence would then be life imprisonment. See § 775.082(3)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). In that situation, sections 775.087(2)(a)(3) and (2)(c) would allow the trial court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence up to life. Accordingly, while the phrase and not more than ... life would not apply in this case, there are situations in which it would apply. Thus, this interpretation of the statute does not render the phrase meaningless. Further, while section 775.087(2)(d) provides that the Legislature intends that offenders who possess and use firearms should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, that same section also expresses its intent that the  minimum terms of imprisonment shall be imposed. (Emphasis added.) Once again, this evinces an intent for courts to impose the minimum terms of imprisonment provided for in section 775.087(2)(a), even those that might be in excess of a statutory maximum in another statute. But the statutory scheme does not evince an intent to set new statutory maximums to override all other statutory maximums. We should err on the side of applying the rule of lenity when the alternative construction of an ambiguous statute would result in such harsh consequences. Mendenhall was convicted of a second-degree felony, which carries a maximum sentence of fifteen years. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). His conviction was enhanced by section 775.087(1)(b) to a first-degree felony, the maximum sentence for which is thirty years. See § 775.082(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Further application of section 775.087 requires an absolute minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years to be imposed, meaning that Mendenhall will serve at least twenty-five years because the 10-20-Life statute provides that a defendant is not eligible for gain-time or any other form of discretionary early release (other than pardon or executive clemency) prior to serving the minimum sentence. Under my view of section 775.087(2)(a)(3), the sentence for Mendenhall's offense after both enhancements increases from a maximum of fifteen years to a maximum sentence of thirty years with a mandatory minimum sentence between twenty-five and thirty years. This is already significantly harsher than his original, unenhanced sentence of fifteen years and is in keeping with the legislative intent expressed in subsection (2)(d) that offenders who possess and use firearms should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. To allow a trial judge unfettered discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of life for an offense such as Mendenhall's without express legislative authorization, but rather by judicial construction of the statute, works an injustice and is contrary to our doctrine of separation of powers.