This post is a little speculative because I do not have full information. While I am fairy confident of the basic facts, any clarifications, including telling me that my interpretation is completely wrong, would be welcome.
Anyway, this is another in a series of posts on semi-presidentialism in areas other than internationally recognised states. The focus is on areas with, or that have had, full constitutions, but ones that are not recognised as independent states. They may be territories that have declared independence but whose status has not been internationally recognised, or they may simply be self-governing units within or under the protection of another state.
As I understand it, the Republic of Crimea adopted a constitution in May 1992 and established itself as an autonomous republic within Ukraine. In September and October 1993 laws were passed that allowed for the direct election of the president. There was a presidential election in January 1994 and Yuriy Meshkov was elected at the second ballot. A short report is available here.
Now, I believe that the constitution was then amended in May 1994 and the role of prime minister and government was reorganised. At that point, it appears as if the PM and government were responsible to the legislature and there was a directly elected president. So, by my reckoning, Crimea was constitutionally semi-presidential from May 1994. (The constitution as is available in Russian here. Using Google Translate the clauses are very clear.)
In March 1995 the Ukrainian legislature abolished both the 1992 constitution and the presidency of the Republic of Crimea. Yuriy Meshkov, it might be noted, was pro-Russian. So, Crimea was no longer semi-presidential from that time.
Therefore, unless I am mistaken, the Republic of Crimea had a semi-presidential constitution from January 1994 to March 1995.
Any clarification would be appreciated.