Charles v. State

In granting rehearing and affirming the sentences in this case, the newly constituted majority has refused to defer to the legislature in a matter of sentencing policy and has rewritten a statute to achieve a desired result. This flip-flop jurisprudence is contrary to previous pronouncements from at least one panel member. See, e.g., State v. C.M., 154 So.3d 1177, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (Levine, J.) (stating that courts are “not -at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature”) (quoting Bay Holdings, Inc. v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo, Ass’n, 895 So.2d…