TODD FITZGERALD FRAZIER, 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.
Todd Frazier appealed his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and possession of marijuana, challenging both consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences and the sentencing departure. The court reversed the consecutive stacking of cocaine sentences but affirmed the departure sentence and other convictions.
The trial court erred in stacking consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences for the trafficking and conspiracy convictions because they constituted the same criminal episode, and the case is distinguishable from prior precedent permitting consecutive sentences. However, the departure sentence is affirmed because at least two valid reasons supported departure from guidelines. The sufficiency of the cocaine amount and conspiracy evidence are affirmed.
[1] Consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences may not be imposed for offenses arising from the same criminal episode.
[2] A departure sentence will be upheld if at least one valid reason supports the departure, even if other reasons are invalid.
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“Because of the similarity in time, place and amounts of cocaine, the facts show the same criminal episode.”
The court's reasoning for why consecutive sentences were improper—the offenses were part of a single criminal episode rather than separate offenses.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrazier was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and possession of marijuana. The evidence showed similar quantities…
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 Escalating Pattern Of Criminal Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Todd Fitzgerald Frazier seeks review of the final judgment and departure sentence imposed for his conviction of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and possession of marijuana. Frazier raises four points on appeal. We agree that the trial court erred in stacking consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences, but otherwise affirm.
He first argues that the thirty-year sentences imposed consecutively for each of the cocaine offenses were improperly stacked. Because of the similarity in time, place and amounts of cocaine, the facts show the same criminal episode. Although this court has held in Berrio v. State, 538 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), that consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences could be imposed for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and actual trafficking in cocaine, there the conspiracy to traffic was much broader in scope, occurred at a separate time and was not part of the same criminal episode. These facts are not present here. This case is more similar to Vickery v. State, 515 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We therefore reverse the consecutive sentences for the trafficking convictions and remand for resentencing.
Frazier also contends that the trial judge erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines. At least two of the judge’s ten reasons for departure are valid; a past failure at rehabilitation and an escalating pattern of criminality. See Livingston v. State, 565 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.1990); Bunney v. State, 579 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). ‘When multiple reasons exist to support a departure from a guidelines sentence, the departure shall be upheld when at least one circumstance or factor justifies the departure regardless of the presence of other circumstances or factors found not to justify departure.” § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (1991). Thus, we affirm the departure sentence.
Frazier’s third point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the amount of cocaine to support the “trafficking” amount of twenty-eight grams. The evidence amply supports, by witness testimony and Frazier’s admission, quantities of cocaine in excess of twenty-eight grams. We affirm on this point.
Lastly, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy. In light of all the evidence to the contrary, we are not persuaded by the argument that his admission to possession of an ounce of cocaine during negotiations with the confidential informant were hyperbole. Moreover, this argument was not preserved for review. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1985).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
HALL, J., and REESE, THOMAS S., Associate Judge., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 695 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ntencing. Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences may not be imposed for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, when those offenses arise out of the same criminal episode and involve the same contraband. See Frazier v. State, 630 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 639 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1994); Drake v. State, 614 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Boom v. State, 574 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Since the record shows that both the trafficking and the conspiracy in this instance arose…
-
Kelly v. State, 924 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ences were imposed in Palmer was a mere “enhancement” of the penalty prescribed for the underlying offense of robbery. 595 So. 2d at 953. We believe that the reasoning of Vickery has been superseded by Daniels and Hale. Similarly, Frazier v. State, 630 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), relied on Vickery and did not discuss Hale or Daniels. The second district has continued to follow this line of cases. See Johnson v. State, 695 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We believe that these decisions are contrary to both…1 / 2
-
Kelly v. State, 964 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2007)…la. 4th DCA 2006). On motion for rehearing, the district- court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Johnson v. State, 695 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and Frazier v. State, 630 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and the First District Court of Appeal in Vickery v. State, 515 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Because we conclude that the Legislature intended that the mandatory minimum…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Livingston v. State, 565 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1988)
- Vickery v. State, 515 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Bunney v. State, 579 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Berrio v. State, 538 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)