25 Years for a Touch? When Mandatory Minimums Tie the Judge’s Hands

By: John Guidry

How long had human beings been ruled by Kings, Queens, Pharaohs, and the like? Then along comes the first big experiment in governance—we Americans decided to rule ourselves.

Now, for this experiment to work, the powers that corrupt must be separated to provide a check on each other’s behavior. This, my friends, is straight out of your fourth-grade government textbook (the one with the big flag on the front).

• The Judicial Branch: Sentences citizens. Judges are in the best position to understand the facts and decide the consequences.
• The Legislative Branch: Writes the laws.

Unfortunately, the Legislature decided that judges weren’t doing a good enough job, so they created “Minimum Mandatory Sentences.” These laws strip judges of discretion. If you are found guilty, the judge must impose the sentence the politicians in Tallahassee decided upon, regardless of the unique facts of your case.

Facing a Minimum Mandatory Sentence?

There may still be legal ways to fight for a lower sentence. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Glimmer of Hope: Downward Departures

Usually, there is a way out. Florida Statute 921.0026 permits a judge to grant a “Downward Departure”—basically, a sentence below the minimum—if certain conditions are met, such as:

1. The offense was an isolated incident.
2. The offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner.
3. The defendant has shown remorse.

A downward departure permits a judge to inject a bit of justice into the raw, sloppy, and intellectually lazy legislative mandates behind a minimum mandatory sentence.

But what happens when the Supreme Court says “No”?

The Case: Rochester v. State

That brings us to our case of the day, Rochester v. State, 140 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 2014). This case was decided incorrectly by our Florida Supreme Court, but to understand why, look at the facts spelled out in Judge Pariente’s dissent:

• The Incident: Rochester touched a 9-year-old girl over her clothes (genitalia) for “no more than ten seconds.”
• The Confession: He admitted it to police, stating he wasn’t aroused and “wasn’t thinking anything.”
• The Plea Offer: Rochester was offered 7.5 years in prison. He declined and went to trial. (Why he went to trial with a taped confession is a story for another day).

The Sentence: Because he was found guilty of Lewd Molestation of a child under 12, the statute required a specific sentence: 25 Years Minimum Mandatory Prison.

The Judge’s Dilemma

Rochester’s attorney asked for a Downward Departure. He argued that the crime met the criteria: it was an isolated incident, done in an unsophisticated manner, and Rochester showed remorse.

The trial judge agreed that the sentence was too harsh but felt powerless.

“I think that 25 years is extremely excessive on a case like this. If I had any authority whatsoever to go below, I would certainly go below. I don’t think I have any discretion in this case.”

The Ruling: The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the 25-year sentence. They ruled that the specific mandatory language in the sex offense statute (775.082) overrides the general downward departure statute (921.0026). Even though Rochester qualified for a departure, the judge was not allowed to give it.

John’s Takeaways

• The Rule of Lenity Ignored: Florida law states that when a statute is unclear, it should be interpreted in favor of the accused (The Rule of Lenity). The Supreme Court ignored this, choosing to uphold a harsh sentence despite the conflict between the two statutes.
• The Risk of Trial: Rochester turned down 7.5 years and got 25. This is the “trial tax.” When mandatory minimums are involved, rolling the dice at trial is incredibly dangerous.
• Legislative Overreach: This case proves that our courts will often bend over backwards to uphold a sex offender’s sentence, even if it means ignoring the judge’s desire to be fair. The Legislature has successfully tied the hands of the Judiciary.

Don’t Face the Mandatory Alone

If you are facing a charge that carries a minimum mandatory sentence, you need to know if a downward departure is even legally possible before you decide to go to trial.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s analyze your options.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.