GERALD EDWIN MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
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.
Gerald Mitchell appeals his conviction for trafficking in cannabis, challenging his fifteen-year sentence which exceeded the recommended guidelines of 3.5 to 4.5 years. The court affirms the conviction but vacates the sentence, holding that the trial court improperly departed from sentencing guidelines based on the quantity of drugs and the defendant's status as a drug dealer.
The court held that both reasons for departure from guidelines are invalid. The quantity of drugs cannot justify a heavier penalty because the legislature has already accounted for different drug quantities in the statutory scheme. Additionally, a defendant's status as a drug dealer is an invalid reason for departure in a trafficking case because dealing is an inherent component of the trafficking offense itself.
[1] The quantity of drugs involved in an offense is an invalid reason for departing from a recommended guidelines sentence when the legislature has already promulgated statut…
[2] A defendant's status as a drug dealer is an invalid reason for departing from a recommended guidelines sentence in a trafficking case, as dealing is an inherent component…
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“For the trial court to impose a heavier penalty based on the amount of drugs involved invades the province of the legislature which promulgated the statutory ranges for the quantity of proscribed substances involved in an offense and is an invalid reason for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence.”
Establishes that quantity of drugs cannot justify sentencing departure because the legislature has already set statutory ranges for different quantities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMitchell was convicted of trafficking in cannabis under Florida law. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence with a $25,000 fine, departing fr…
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 Trafficking In Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction of trafficking in cannabis in violation of sections 893.135, 893.03(l)(c), 893.13(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1985).
The defendant’s recommended guidelines sentence was three and one-half to four and one-half years. The trial court sentenced defendant to fifteen years’ incarceration and imposed a $25,000 fine listing as reasons for departure the quantity of cannabis involved and the defendant’s status as a drug dealer. For the trial court to impose a heavier penalty based on the amount of drugs involved invades the province of the legislature which promulgated the statutory ranges for the quantity of proscribed substances involved in an offense1 and is an invalid reason for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence. Koopman v. State, 507 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Stanley v. State, 507 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Newton v. State, 490 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Compare Santana v. State, 507 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Flournoy v. State, 507 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Atwaters v. State, 495 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Irwin v. State, 479 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986); Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1985).
This court has held the defendant’s status as a drug dealer to be a valid reason for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence on convictions of unlawful possession of controlled substances with the intent to sell or deliver. See Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Murphy v. State, 459 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). However, Mitchell was convicted of “trafficking” in cannabis. To “traffic” in a commodity means to “deal” in it and vice versa.2 Both terms encompass bargaining, trading, and bartering in some commodity. To deal or trade is therefore an inherent component of the crime of trafficking in a controlled substance. The statutory definition of trafficking in section 893.135(l)(a) is broader than mere possession with intent to sell or deliver, section 893.13, in that it also includes the knowing possession of an amount in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis, but not more restrictive. Therefore a defendant’s status as a “drug dealer” in a “trafficking” case is an invalid reason for departure. See Young v. State, 502 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Neither of the reasons listed for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence are valid. Accordingly, we confirm the conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing within the recommended guidelines sentence.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . § 893.135(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1229 (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braxton v. State, 519 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ture did not intend for the amount of drugs to be a factor in determining the extent of a sentence for possession. Garcia v. State, 504 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); Koop-man v. State, 507 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Cf. Mitchell v. State, 509 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Therefore, the amount of drugs is an invalid reason for exceeding the guidelines. However, as we stated in Koopman, we recognize the conflict in opinion on the validity of the latter reason and, accordingly, certify to the Flor…
-
Bradshaw v. State, 531 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…row seems to be an observation of the defendant’s behavior rather than a specific reason for departure. The defendant acknowledges that this court has upheld the defendant’s status as a drug dealer as a valid reason for departure. Mitchell v. State, 509 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The continuing and persistent pattern of the defendant's criminal activity is likewise a valid reason for departure. See Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987). The judg…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Murphy v. State, 459 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Mullen v. State, 483 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Atwaters v. State, 495 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Irwin v. State, 479 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Young v. State, 502 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Newton v. State, 490 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Santana v. State, 507 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Flournoy v. State, 507 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Koopman v. State, 507 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)