STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CARRICK A. SCATES, 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 State appealed a downward departure sentence in a drug offense case involving cocaine purchase near a school. The court reversed the sentence and remanded for imposition of the mandatory minimum, while certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether trial courts may depart from mandatory minimums under a drug rehabilitation statute.
A trial court may not depart from the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement of section 893.13(1)(e) using section 397.12 as authority. The court reversed the sentence and remanded for imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence.
[1] A trial court cannot depart downward from a statutory minimum mandatory sentence based on a drug rehabilitation provision that does not create an exception to such mandat…
[2] A prior amendment to a statute, which added a minimum mandatory sentence, may render prior case law interpreting an earlier version of the statute inapplicable to the ame…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“section 397.12 does not provide an exception to the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement of section 893.13(l)(e)”
Establishes the court's clear legal holding that drug rehabilitation provisions cannot override mandatory minimums
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee pled guilty to purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of Florida law. The trial court found that appellee purchased on…
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 Mandatory Minimum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
This appeal presents a factual scenario identical to those presented in State v. Lane, 582 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and State v. Baxter, 582 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). On the authority of both Lane and Baxter, we reverse appellee’s sentence and remand to the trial court with directions that appellee be sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence. We also certify a question of great public importance.
Appellee pled guilty to purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). Although the statute provides for a three-year minimum mandatory sentence, the trial court relied on section 397.12, Florida Statutes (1989), and State v. Herrin, 568 So. 2d 920 (Fla.1990), to depart downward from appellee’s sentencing guidelines score of three and one-half to four and one-half years, sentencing appellee to two years probation. Among the various reasons given for its downward departure, the court found that appellee had purchased one “rock” of cocaine intended for his personal use; the purchase of this rock took place while appellee was under the influence of alcohol; appellee suffered from substance abuse addictions; and appellee was both amenable to and capable of meaningful rehabilitation back into society.
This court has previously held that section 397.12 does not provide an exception to the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement of section 893.13(l)(e). Lane, 582 So. 2d at 78. See also State v. Ross, 447 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (1984). Further, we recognize that Herrin concerned the 1987 version of section 893.13(l)(e), before the 1989 amendment which added the three year minimum mandatory clause to that section. However, we note Judge Anstead’s special concurrence in State v. Liataud, 587 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and we are not unsympathetic to the premise that, but for this court’s opinions in Lane, Baxter, and now Liataud, there would be sound reasoning to support the trial judge’s actions concerning this appellee. Accordingly, we now certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question:
MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES 1989), UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DRUG REHABILITATION PROVISION OF SECTION 397.12, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)?
REVERSED and REMANDED and QUESTION CERTIFIED.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Carrick A. Scates v. State, 603 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We review State v. Scates, 585 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA1991), in which the court certified the following question as being of great public importance: MAY A TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DEPART FROM THE MINIMUM MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), UNDER THE AU…
-
State v. Forrest, 588 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accord with this court’s opinion in State v. Baxter, 581 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We also certify the issue as one of great public importance as we did in State v. Scates, 585 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We do not restate the issue since it is set out in full in Scates. GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
State v. Vola, 591 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. We deny the petition for rehearing and the motion to stay but certify as a question of great public importance the same question set out in this court’s opinion in State v. Scates, 585 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Herrin v. State, 568 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Ross, 447 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Lane, 582 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. Liataud, 587 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)