NATHAN PLATT, JR., 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.
A trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines based on reasons unsupported by law or fact is improper.
Appellant pled no contest to accessory after the fact to cocaine trafficking. The trial court departed from sentencing guidelines, imposing a five-yea…
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 Accessory After The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a sentence which departed from the sentencing guidelines. We reverse.
Appellant was charged with second degree felony murder (Count I); trafficking in cocaine over 400 grams (Count II); and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine over 400 grams (Count III). Pursuant to an agreement with the state, appellant pled no contest to the charge of accessory after the fact to trafficking in cocaine and the state nol-prossed Counts I and III.
The guidelines called for any non-state prison sanction and the court departed, sentencing the appellant to five years in prison. The reasons for departure given by the court were: (1) appellant’s method of providing lookout surveillance evidenced a professional manner; and (2) the volume of cocaine involved was significant in its adverse impact upon society and the recommended guidelines range was inadequate for purposes of punishment as it applies to this case.
Without appellant’s statements made to police, there was no factual basis for reason number one. Appellant’s statements can not be used to provide such a factual basis, because they were induced by the policemen’s promises that they would not be used against appellant. See Henthome v. State, 409 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Therefore, reason number one is an invalid reason for departure. See Pursell v. State, 483 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Reason number two is also invalid. The quantity of drugs does not relate to the crime for which appellant was convicted. See Garcia v. State, 504 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Moreover, neither an adverse impact upon society nor the inadequacy of the recommended guidelines range are valid reasons for departure. See Smith v. State, 484 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Baldwin v. State, 494 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Angelo v. State, 541 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ture sentence imposed was based upon three grounds, two of which were invalid, ie., the quantity of drugs involved, Pastor v. State, 521 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1988), and the effect of the distribution of large amounts of drugs on society, Platt v. State, 515 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The third ground, that the crime was committed in a well organized and professional manner, is a valid reason for departure. Young v. State, 502 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, we are unable to conclude beyond a reasona…
-
United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate, 852 F. Supp. 1013 (S.D. Fla. 1994)…Baker Parrott, Case No. 89R-1393, Ex. 12. On appeal, Platt’s Florida state criminal sentence was overturned and his August 25, 1986, statement was ruled inadmissible by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Nathan Platt v. State of Florida, 515 So.2d 1068 (4DCA 1987). 16. Platt arguably recanted his statement at a state court sentencing hearing when he stated that, “No, that night I wasn’t there. I said stuff in that — I was scared half to death, and I didn’t remember saying half of it when 1 rea…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Pursell v. State, 483 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Smith v. State, 484 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Garcia v. State, 504 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Baldwin v. State, 494 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Henthorne v. State, 409 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)