From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 11, 2010
36 So. 3d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

In Montgomery, the defendant appealed his judgment and sentence for lewd or lascivious molestation in violation of section, 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).

Summary of this case from Rochester v. State

Opinion

No. 2D09-4329.

June 11, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Diana Moreland, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Jessie Montgomery appeals his judgment and sentence for lewd or lascivious molestation in violation of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008). The trial court sentenced Montgomery to twenty-five years in prison, followed by sex offender probation for the remainder of his life. See § 775.082(3)(a)(4)(a)(II), Fla. Stat. (2008). Both the orally pronounced sentence and the written sentence provide that Montgomery's sentence is a minimum mandatory sentence "if required" by statute. We affirm Montgomery's judgment and sentence but write to clarify that section 775.082(3)(a)(4)(a)(II) does not require a minimum mandatory sentence.

Montgomery was sentenced pursuant to section 775.082(3)(a), which provides:

(3) A person who has been convicted of any other designated felony may be punished as follows:

. . . .

4. a. Except as provided in sub-subparagraph b., for a life felony committed on or after September 1, 2005, which is a violation of s. 800.04(5)(b), by:

(I) A term of imprisonment for life; or

(II) A split sentence that is a term of not less than 25 years' imprisonment and not exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation or community control for the remainder of the person's natural life, as provided in s. 948.012(4).

The State concedes, and we agree, that Montgomery's sentence is not a minimum mandatory sentence. If the legislature intended to impose a minimum mandatory sentence, the statute would have included specific language to that effect. See §§ 316.1935(6), Fla. Stat. (2008); 775.087(2) (3); 784.07(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008); 794.0115(7), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that a defendant "is not eligible for statutory gain-time under s. 944.275 or any form of discretionary early release, other than pardon or executive clemency or conditional medical release under s. 947.149," prior to serving the minimum sentence). See also § 775.082(9)(b) ("A person sentenced under paragraph (a) shall be released only by expiration of sentence and shall not be eligible for parole, control release, or any form of early release. Any person sentenced under paragraph (a) must serve 100 percent of the court-imposed sentence."); § 893.135(3), Fla. Stat. (2008) ("A person sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under this section is not eligible for any form of discretionary early release, except pardon or executive clemency or conditional medical release under s. 947.149, prior to serving the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment").

Moreover, if there is any ambiguity in the language of section 775.082(3)(a)(4)(II), we must construe it in favor of the defendant. See § 775.021(1). Accordingly, we affirm Montgomery's judgment and sentence but note that his sentence does not provide for a minimum mandatory term of imprisonment.

Affirmed.

CRENSHAW and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Montgomery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 11, 2010
36 So. 3d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

In Montgomery, the defendant appealed his judgment and sentence for lewd or lascivious molestation in violation of section, 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).

Summary of this case from Rochester v. State
Case details for

Montgomery v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jessie MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 11, 2010

Citations

36 So. 3d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Rochester v. State

PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court for review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in…

Rochester v. State

Based upon our analysis, we need not reach this argument. We recognize that our holding is contrary to…