STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTO I. RAPHAEL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court lacked the power to exercise its discretion under section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1983), for charges of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.
Roberto I. Raphael pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and delivery of cocaine. The trial judge placed Raphael…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Roberto I. Raphael, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and one count of delivery of cocaine. The trial judge placed Raphael on probation on all charges and required Raphael to submit to a drug rehabilitation program.
The state objected and appeals, arguing that the court below lacked power to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 397.-12, Florida Statutes (1983), regarding the charges of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We agree and reverse.
Although the type of narcotics differed, the statutes and facts were the same in our recent opinion in State v. Edwards, 456 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). There, we held that a court’s authority to exercise its discretion under section 397.12 is limited to only those violations of chapter 893 which relate to possession, specifically section 893.13(1)(e) or (l)(f). Id. at 578-79.
Because the court sentenced appellee pursuant to a plea agreement and as we set aside the sentences, we remand with directions to allow Raphael an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty to all counts.
Reversed, judgments and sentences set aside and remanded with instructions for further proceedings.
DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lane, 582 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…section 397.12 be an exception to the mandatory minimum sentencing requirement of section 893.-13(l)(e) in all respects or it would have so stated. This case is subtler than State v. Edwards, 456 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and State v. Raphael, 469 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986). Moreover, the defendant here purchased two rocks for $20, which could reasonably be interpreted to have been purchased for personal use only. Nevertheless, section 893.13(l)(e), makes no dist…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Edwards, 456 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)