THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
COLIN LINCOLN FORD, 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.
Florida's appellate court reversed a downward departure sentence for cocaine offenses because substance abuse cannot justify departure from sentencing guidelines under Florida law.
A defendant's substance abuse or addiction does not justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under Florida's sentencing guidelines.
[1] Substance abuse or addiction cannot, under any circumstances, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under Florida's sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 defendant's substance abuse or addiction "does not, under any circumstances, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under the sentencing guidelines."”
Court's statement of controlling law from Fla. Stat. § 921.0016(5)
Defendant was charged with sale, manufacture, or delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine. The trial court offered a plea as a habitual offender …
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 Substance Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals from a downward departure sentencing order. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Defendant was charged with the sale, manufacture, or delivery of cocaine, and with possession of cocaine. Over the State’s objection,1 the trial court offered defendant a plea as a habitual offender to 364 days in a drug treatment program with no early termination and no credit for time served. The sentencing scoresheet reflects a recommended sentence of 45 months in state prison and a permitted sentencing range of 33.75 months to 56. 25 months. The trial court’s stated reason for the departure was that the defendant had never received residential treatment for his substance abuse.
We reverse, as a defendant’s substance abuse or addiction “does not, under any circumstances, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under the sentencing guidelines.” § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). See also State v. Norris, 724 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); State v. Brown, 717 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). On remand, the trial court shall permit defendant to withdraw his plea, or sentence defendant within the sentencing guidelines.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur. COPE, J., dissents.
. Our review of the record demonstrates that the State's objection was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review.
COPE, J.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The State did not, in words or in substance, advise the trial court that this downward departure for residential drug treatment is prohibited by subsection 921.0016(5), Florida Stat utes (1997). To preserve an issue for appeal the objection must be “sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.” § 924.051(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); see State v. Henriquez, 717 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). As was true in Henriquez, the State’s appeal should be rejected for lack of preservation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ved appeal on this issue by not making a sufficiently specific objection to the downward departure sentence. We disagree. The State does not have to advise the trial court specifically that the reason for the departure is invalid. See State v. Ford, 739 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999). In this case, the State asserted its objection to departing downward from the guidelines sentence before the trial judge entered into the agreement with Barnes, and the trial judge noted that the departure was over the State’s o…
-
State v. Roberts, 824 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…fense of selling cocaine to a police officer. Because there were no valid reasons for departure, we reverse. See Atwaters v. State, 519 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1988) (holding that the quantity of drugs may not be used to support a departure); State v. Ford, 739 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that a defendant’s substance abuse or addiction does not justify a downward departure). As we think that the State’s objection was sufficiently specific to advise the court of the alleged error, we are not persuaded by th…
-
State v. Beck, 763 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…l disorder that is “unrelated to substance abuse or addiction.” As the section specifically excludes treatment for substance abuse or addiction, the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines on this basis. See also State v. Ford, 739 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The fourth ground for departure was that Beck cooperated with the state. There is no indication by the state that Beck should be credited in this regard. Further, we note that the only evidence of cooperation is Beck’s admission…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Henriquez, 717 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Morris v. Morris, 724 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Huertas v. Centro Cristiano de Alabanza, Inc., 717 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)