STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PEDRO JOHN CUESTA, 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 trial court erred in imposing a probationary sentence instead of the mandatory minimum sentence for cocaine trafficking when the state did not file a motion for substantial assistance.
The defendant pleaded no contest to cocaine trafficking, a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence. The state did not file a motion for substanti…
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 Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The state appeals the trial court’s refusal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence on defendant Pedro John Cuesta for his conviction for trafficking in cocaine.
Defendant entered a plea of no contest to the trafficking charge, leaving defendant’s sentence to the discretion of the trial judge. At the sentencing hearing, the state noted it had discussed with defendant the possibility of his rendering substantial assistance pursuant to section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1983). The state said that defendant had not been diligent in his efforts to provide assistance to the police. As a result, the state did not file a motion with the court suggesting that defendant had rendered substantial assistance within the meaning of the statute.
Over the state’s objection, the trial court placed defendant on seven years’ probation, directing that he serve six months in county jail followed by two years’ community control. The court also ordered defendant to complete 100 hours of community service for each year of community control and pay $1,500 in court costs within five years.
Defendant’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine called for a mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment. § 893.135(1)(b)(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). The sentencing court lacked the authority to reduce the defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence since the state did not file a motion for reduction of sentence based on the defendant’s providing substantial assistance to law enforcement. § 893.135(3); State v. Bateman, 423 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 446 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1984).
Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s conviction but vacate his sentence. On remand the trial court shall resentence defendant, such resentence to include a three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
DANAHY and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mack v. State, 504 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…andatory minimum sentence. We disagree with appellant’s contentions. Absent a motion by the state attorney pursuant to subsection (3), supra, the sentencing court lacks authority to suspend or reduce the mandatory minimum sentence. State v. Cuesta, 490 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986); State v. Bateman, 423 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982). Broad discretion must be accorded state attorneys in the determination of whether to initiate a request for suspension or reduction under subsection (3). State v. Werner, 402…
-
Moore v. State, 498 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…tantial assistance. State v. Werner, 402 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1981); Mack v. State (Fla. 1st DCA October 2, 1986). [11 F.L.W. 2093]. The court is not empowered to reduce the sentence below the minimum mandatory absent the state’s motion. State v. Cuesta, 490 So. 2d 239 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); State v. Bateman, 423 So. 2d 577 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). Although the courts have recognized that “[pjrosecu-torial overreaching in a. particular factual scenario might render [the substantial assistance statute] unconstitutional as ap…
-
Plummer v. State, 121 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…, which required a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years and a fine of $100,000.00. § 893.135(l)(c)l.b, Fla. Stat. (2010). Nothing in the statute gave the trial court the discretion to impose a lower minimum mandatory and fine. See State v. Cuesta, 490 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. DeMille, 890 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); State v. Delgado, 717 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Appellant conceded the trial court’s error on this point. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED. PADOVANO,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Bateman, 423 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Bateman v. State, 446 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1984)
- German Mora v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 446 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1984)