DENNIS LEE RIDENOUR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Dennis Ridenour was convicted of multiple drug offenses following a search of his premises based on controlled buys. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentencing, finding the trial court improperly deviated from sentencing guidelines by citing his employment with HRS without showing the drug crimes involved HRS facilities or his official duties.
The convictions are affirmed, but the sentences are reversed and remanded. While the pretrial and trial proceedings were free from error, the trial court improperly deviated from sentencing guidelines by relying on Ridenour's HRS employment when none of the drug crimes involved HRS facilities, his official duties, or persons under HRS care.
[1] A search warrant may be secured based on information obtained from a controlled buy.
[2] A trial court errs in deviating from sentencing guidelines when the defendant's position of trust does not relate to the underlying criminal conduct.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is true that the defendant was employed by HRS and could have been (in such capacity) in a sensitive position with minors; however none of the convictions involved events that took place at an HRS facility or in the discharge of his duties or with a person under the care of HRS and therefore we think the trial court should not have aggravated the sentence.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that employment alone, without connection to the actual crimes, does not justify sentencing deviation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement officers conducted controlled buys that led to securing a search warrant for Ridenour's premises. After a second controlled buy, the p…
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 Unlawful Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As a result of a “controlled buy”, law enforcement officers secured a search warrant of the defendant’s premises. Thereupon, after a second “controlled buy”, the defendant’s premises were entered and searched, and the defendant was arrested and charged with numerous drug violations. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine; unlawful possession of cannabis; possession of a controlled substance, to wit: methaqualone; use, possession, manufacture, delivery, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia; possession of a controlled substance, to wit: diazepam; and sale or delivery of a controlled substance, to wit: diazepam.
Upon sentencing, the trial court deviated from the sentencing guidelines because, “defendant held position of trust in HRS,” and sentenced the defendant to ten years for the sale or delivery of a controlled substance, four concurrent five-year sentences on the other felony counts, and to time served on the misdemeanor count.
On appeal, the appellant urges error in denial of a motion to quash the affidavit of the search warrant, certain pretrial discovery motions and several evidentiary rulings, plus an unfounded reason for deviating from the guidelines.
We find no error in the several grounds urged for reversal as to the pretrial and trial proceedings. Arango v. State, 467 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1985); Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bonham v. State, 450 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Goodman v. State, 418 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Lowery v. State, 402 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); United States v. Bagley, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).
However, we do find error in the trial court’s deviation from the sentencing guidelines. It is true that the defendant was employed by HRS and could have been (in such capacity) in a sensitive position with minors; however none of the convictions involved events that took place at an HRS facility or in the discharge of his duties or with a person under the care of HRS and therefore we think the trial court should not have aggravated the sentence. We have not overlooked the case of Gardener v. State, 462 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), but we note a distinction in that the school teacher was convicted of selling narcotics on the school grounds and we do not think this decision will support the deviation in the instant case.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the convictions are affirmed, the sentences are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for sentencing within the guidelines.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koopman v. State, 507 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…the minor’s teacher; in fact, appellant had resigned from his teaching position several months prior to committing the offense. Consequently, relative to the minor, appellant was not in a position of trust that he could abuse. See Ridenour v. State, 486 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986) (that “ ‘defendant held position of trust at HRS’ ” not a valid reason for aggravation because “none of the convictions involved events that took place at an HRS facility or in the discha…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985)
- Winford Lee Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Bonham v. State, 450 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lowery v. State, 402 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Gardener v. State, 462 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Goodman v. State, 418 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Arango v. State, 467 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1985)