VERNON D. COLEMAN AND MONTE MONIZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
Vernon Coleman and Monte Moniz were convicted by jury of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment each. The appellate court affirmed their convictions but reversed their sentences, finding the trial court improperly relied on invalid sentencing guideline departure reasons.
The trial court erred in departing from sentencing guidelines based on invalid reasons. Although the quantity of cocaine (1000 grams) was a valid departure reason, the court also impermissibly relied on 'no pretense of moral or legal justification' and the defendants' intent to traffic in an interstate plan, which was inherent to the offenses charged. Because the sentence rested on both valid and invalid reasons, reversal and remand for resentencing was required absent clear evidence the invalid reasons did not affect the departure.
[1] A trial court cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum mandatory penalty.
[2] A trial court's written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines must be legally permissible.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“No pretense of moral or legal justification is an impermissible reason for departure.”
Establishes that one of the trial court's stated sentencing reasons was categorically invalid under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found Coleman and Moniz guilty of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in 400 or more grams of cocaine (specifically 1000 grams total). The tr…
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 Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
A jury found defendants Vernon Coleman and Monte Moniz guilty of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in 400 or more grams of cocaine. The trial court adjudicated them guilty and sentenced each defendant to twenty years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. Defendants appealed.
Both defendants raise the same sentencing guidelines issue. Additionally, Moniz raises three points challenging his convictions. We find merit only in the defendants’ contention concerning their sentences.
Defendants argue the trial court erred in departing from the guidelines in imposing their sentences. The minimum mandatory sentence for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine is fifteen years’ imprisonment. §§ 893.135(l)(b)3. and 839.135(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). The guidelines recommended sentence for each defendant was five and one-half to seven years’ imprisonment. Under these circumstances, the trial judge could not impose sentences below the minimum mandatory penalty. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(9).
In sentencing defendants to twenty years in prison on each count, the trial judge departed from the guidelines. The trial judge gave the following written reasons for departure: no pretense of moral or legal justification, the amount of cocaine involved, and the defendants’ intent to traffic continuously in an interstate plan. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll).
No pretense of moral or legal justification is an impermissible reason for departure. Moore v. State, 483 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The intent to traffic in an interstate plan appears to encompass the offenses for which defendants were convicted. Since such intent is inherent in these offenses, it is not a proper reason for departure. See State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986).
The quantity of cocaine involved in this case, 1000 grams, is a valid reason for departure. Guerrero v. State, 484 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (transaction involving 965.4 grams of cocaine was proper reason for departure where defendant charged with trafficking in over 400 grams of cocaine). As in Guerrero, the amount of cocaine involved here was well over the threshold amount of 400 grams.
Yet, when a departure sentence is grounded on both valid and invalid reasons, “the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence.” Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985). Here, the state failed to meet this burden.
Accordingly, we affirm defendants’ convictions but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.
DANAHY, C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoyte v. State, 518 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…is is distinguishable from cases where courts have departed when the amount of drugs exceeds the minimum limit of the highest statutory categories set forth in section 893.135. Downing v. State, 515 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Coleman v. State, 491 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Pursell v. State, 483 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We think the trial court’s second reason for departure is valid. As noted, the packaging of the marijuana was indeed sophisticated. Further, evidence showed that “perfume or so…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1986)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Bienvenido Guerrero v. State, 484 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Moore v. State, 483 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)