STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CARLOS DELGADO, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Florida appeals a trial court's reduction of a mandatory $50,000 fine for cocaine trafficking based on a downward departure doctrine. The court holds that the Barbera downward departure doctrine applies only to sentences of incarceration, not to statutorily mandated fines, and reverses the reduced fine assessment.
The trial court erred in reducing the statutorily mandated fine. The Barbera downward departure doctrine applies only to sentences of incarceration, not to mandatory fines. Statutory language imposing a fine of $50,000 is mandatory and does not give trial courts discretion absent a state stipulation.
[1] A trial court lacks discretion to deviate from a statutorily mandated fine for trafficking in cocaine.
[2] A downward departure sentence based on addiction is limited to incarceration and does not apply to statutorily mandated fines.
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“a person who commits the first degree felony of trafficking in cocaine 'shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines and pay a fine of $50,000.'”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the fine imposed by statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelgado pleaded nolo contendere to possession of cocaine in an amount of 28 grams or more. The trial court granted a downward departure sentence based…
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 Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s reduction of a statutorily mandated $50,000 fine for trafficking in cocaine in an amount of 28 grams or more. See § 893.135(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (1997). After he pled nolo contendere to one count of possession of cocaine in an amount of 28 grams or more, appellee moved for a downward departure sentence based on Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1987), receded from on other grounds Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). Appellee alleged that he lacked any prior criminal history and was addicted to cocaine.
The trial court ordered a downward departure sentence and also, over the State’s objection, assessed a $2,000 fine, which was a deviation from the statutorily mandated amount. The State urges that the trial court’s reduced fine assessment, under the auspices of Barbera, was error.
We agree and reverse.
Section 893.135(l)(b)l. provides for both incarceration, pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, and the imposition of a fine: a person who commits the first degree felony of trafficking in cocaine “shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines and pay a fine of $50,000.” (emphases added).
In Barbera, the supreme court held that intoxication was a valid ground for downward departure from a recommended statutory sentence. See 505 So. 2d at 414. Because Barbera speaks of mitigation of a recommended sentence and refers to sentencing guidelines departures, it is properly limited to sentences of incarceration. It is well settled that statutorily mandated fines must be imposed absent a stipulation by the state, which did not occur here. See Lopez v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(“language of [section 835.135(1)(b)3.] concerning the mandatory fine neither equivocates nor gives discretion to the trial court”); Rosa v. State, 508 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(trial court lacked discretion in imposition of fine mandated by section 893.135(1)(b)3.).
In light of the mandatory language of the statute and the applicability of Barbera to sentences of incarceration and not fines, we reverse that portion of the judgment that imposed the fine and remand for the trial court to impose the statutorily mandated amount.
Appellant cross-appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, but since no briefs have been filed, we affirm. See In re Coleman’s Estate, 103 So. 2d 237, 239-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).
WARNER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Demille, 890 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…and for resentencing in compliance with the requirements of section 893.135(l)(c)(l)(a). See State v. Couch, 600 So. 2d 55, 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that it is error not to impose the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence); State v. Delgado, 717 So. 2d 1053, 1053-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that it is well settled that statutorily mandated fines must be imposed absent a stipulation by the State); Lopez v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that the trial court must follow the…
-
Plummer v. State, 121 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…la. Stat. (2010). Nothing in the statute gave the trial court the discretion to impose a lower minimum mandatory and fine. See State v. Cuesta, 490 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. DeMille, 890 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); State v. Delgado, 717 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Appellant conceded the trial court’s error on this point. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED. PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Kena R. Mease, 200 So. 3d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ts, has concluded that the trial court lacks discretion to sentence a defendant below the mandatory minimum. See Plummer v. State, 121 So. 3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); State v. DeMille, 890 So. 2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); State v. Delgado, 717 So. 2d 1053, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lopez v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. Row, 478 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). As our court has explained, “mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements are nondiscretionary and, therefore, t…
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
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Barbera v. State, 505 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1987)
- Tucker v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- In re Est. of Matthew A. Coleman, 103 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Kippings v. State, 508 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Serafin Joseph Rosa, Jr. v. State, 508 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)