CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...LABRIT, Judge.
Abdur-Rashid Islaam appeals an order modifying his judgment and
sentence to add a $500,000 fine. Nearly a year after Mr. Islaam's original
sentence was imposed, the State moved to modify it on the ground that
the relevant criminal statute, section 893.20(2), Florida Statutes (2020),
mandated imposition of the $500,000 fine....
...sentence" under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)—we reverse
with directions to reinstate the original judgment and sentence.
I.
Mr. Islaam pled guilty to engaging in a continuing criminal
enterprise under section 893.20....
...In line with his plea agreement, the
trial court sentenced him to sixty months in prison and ordered him to
pay $650 in fines, costs, and fees. The trial court entered the judgment
and sentence in December 2021. Then, on December 1, 2022, the State
filed a Motion to Correct Incomplete Sentence.
The State argued that section 893.20(2) requires a $500,000 fine to
be imposed on every person convicted of engaging in a continuing
criminal enterprise....
...Islaam contends the trial court
lacked authority to add the $500,000 fine more than a year after issuing
his original judgment and sentence. Second, and in service of his first
claim, he argues that imposition of the $500,000 fine is discretionary
under section 893.20(2) and that the trial court erred by concluding
2
otherwise....
... under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under
any set of factual circumstances." Carter v. State,
786 So. 2d 1173, 1178
(Fla. 2001) (emphasis omitted). The State maintains that no judge could
have imposed Mr. Islaam's original sentence because section
893.20(2)
mandated that his sentence include a $500,000 fine.
This brings us to the statutory interpretation question at the heart
of this appeal. The State reads section
893.20(2) as mandating that a
$500,000 fine be imposed on every person convicted under the statute.
Mr. Islaam reads section
893.20(2) as leaving imposition of the fine to the
trial court's discretion....
...Islaam's sentence was illegal without it. But
if Mr. Islaam is right, we need not reach this question because his
original sentence was legal and the trial court lacked authority to modify
it under rule 3.800(a).
B.
Section 893.20 states in relevant part:
(2) A person who commits the offense of engaging in a
continuing criminal enterprise is guilty of a life felony,
punishable pursuant to the Criminal Punishment Code and
by a fine of $500...
...crime 'punishable by' imprisonment in the state prison," even though
alternative punishment options exist. Id. at 57. Applying similar
reasoning here, a crime "punishable . . . by a fine of $500,000" is not one
that must be punished by a $500,000 fine in every case. Instead, section
893.20(2) merely permits imposition of a $500,000 fine on a person
convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise.2
2 Pointing to subsection (3) of section
893.20, the State argues that
the prohibition on suspension, deferral, or withholding of adjudication of
6
In contrast, other sections of chapter 893 use express, mandatory
language to describe mandatory fines. For example, section
893.135
uses the phrase "shall be ordered to pay" in describing mandatory fines
for drug trafficking. See, e.g., §
893.135(1)(a)1, 2, (b)1.a, b, (c)1.a, b, c.
Section
893.20(2) uses no such mandatory language. We therefore
interpret this section to permit—but not require—a $500,000 fine in
every case.
Furthermore, to the extent section
893.20(2) is susceptible of
divergent interpretations, we must resolve any ambiguities in favor of Mr.
Islaam....
...7
offense" (alteration in original)). Although we do not find the language
ambiguous here, any ambiguities would be resolved contrary to the
State's favored interpretation.
We have no compunction in concluding that section 893.20(2),
insofar as it provides that the crime of engaging in a continuing criminal
enterprise is "punishable ....
...exceedingly punitive policy in the absence of any textual directive to do
so. We respect the legislative process—and Mr. Islaam's right to rely on
the words of the statute—too much to do that.
III.
Because section 893.20(2) does not mandate imposition of a
$500,000 fine, Mr....
