Kemar Rochester v. State of Florida, 140 So. 3d 973

Rochester was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under 12 under 800.04(5)(b) (2008).
Prior to sentencing, Rochester moved for a downward departure under 921.0026(2)(j) due to mitigating circumstances.
The trial court believed it had no discretion because 775.082(3)(a)4 imposed a 25-year minimum and sentenced Rochester to 25 years.
The Fourth District affirmed, holding the statute imposes a mandatory 25-year minimum and certified conflict with Montgomery (Second DCA).
This Court approved the Fourth District’s view that 775.082(3)(a)4 imposes a 25-year mandatory minimum; it disapproved Montgomery to the extent inconsistent.
Dissenting Judge Pariente argued 25 years is not a true mandatory minimum and downward departure could be allowed; gain time could apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 25-year term under 775.082(3)(a)4(a)(II) a mandatory minimum?	Rochester contends it is not mandatory.	State contends 25-year term is mandatory minimum and precludes departure.	Yes, the Court holds it is a mandatory minimum.
Does the statute allow downward departure or apply gain time despite the 25-year minimum?	Rochester argues discretion to depart downward exists under 921.0026.	State argues the 25-year minimum precludes downward departure and gain time applicability.	The Court holds the 25-year minimum precludes downward departure; gain time applicability is not resolved in this decision.

Rochester v. State, 95 So.3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (confirms mandatory 25-year minimum under 775.082(3)(a)4)
Montgomery v. State, 36 So.3d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (held the 25-year minimum is not a mandatory minimum precluding gain time)
Stoletz v. State, 875 So.2d 572 (Fla.2004) (interprets language like ‘not less than’ as a mandatory minimum term)
Johnson v. State, 78 So.3d 1305 (Fla.2012) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Tasker v. State, 48 So.3d 798 (Fla.2010) (statutory language guiding analysis of legislative intent)