STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH WHITE, 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 appeals downward departure sentences imposed on Joseph White for cocaine trafficking and possession with intent to sell. The Florida appellate court reverses the sentences, finding that the trial court's stated justifications for departure—that the offenses were isolated incidents and that White cooperated with police—were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The court reversed the downward departure sentences because neither justification was supported by sufficient competent evidence. The evidence did not establish that White's sales and possession were isolated incidents given the four-month timeframe and ongoing cocaine use. Additionally, White's cooperation—confession and allowing a search that yielded no drugs—did not result in solving crimes or arresting other persons and therefore did not justify departure.
[1] A defendant must prove all elements justifying a downward departure sentence.
[2] Evidence of repeated drug sales over a four-month period, coupled with continued drug use after arrest, does not support a finding that the offenses were isolated inciden…
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“White was required to prove all three of the above elements to justify the departure.”
Establishes the legal standard that a defendant must prove grounds for downward departure sentences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph White was convicted of selling cocaine on March 27, 2003, and twice on April 3, 2003, and was arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to…
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 Downward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The State appeals the downward departure sentences imposed on Joseph White for three counts of sale of cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We reverse because the two stated reasons for departure are not supported by sufficient competent evidence.
The trial court based White’s downward departure sentences on the finding that the offenses were committed in an unsophisticated manner, the offenses were isolated incidents, and White has shown remorse. White was required to prove all three of the above elements to justify the departure. State v. Bell, 854 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
We conclude that White did not prove that the offenses were isolated incidents. White was convicted of selling cocaine once on March 27, 2003, and twice on April 3, 2003. He was thereafter arrested for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell on June 27, 2003. White testified that he had no job during that time period and that selling cocaine was his source of income. He admitted that he sold cocaine during the months of March and April 2003. In addition, White violated supervised pretrial release by testing positive for cocaine on October 1, 15, and 22, 2003. This evidence reflects that White was selling cocaine during a four-month time frame and was still consuming cocaine four months after his arrest for the current offenses. Because the evidence did not establish that either White’s sale or his possession of cocaine with intent to sell were isolated incidents, the trial court erred in entering downward departure sentences on this basis. Cf. State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that evidence supported trial court’s finding that sales of cocaine were isolated incidents where such sales occurred during a period of several days in December, were to the same person, and were at a time when the appellee was trying to provide a good Christmas for his family).
The trial court also found that the departure sentences were justified because White cooperated with the State to resolve the current offenses or another offense. White testified that he cooperated with police by confessing to the crimes for which he was charged and by allowing police to search his room.
We conclude that White’s actions do not rise to the level of cooperation that will support a downward departure. This case is similar to State v. Ertel, 886 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
In Ertel, this court held that the appellee’s actions in allowing police to search his home without a search warrant and in giving statements to police did not justify a downward departure. Id. at 425.
It noted that a departure sentence cannot be based on cooperation where the assistance does not result in solving any crimes or the arrest of other persons. Id. Here, White sold cocaine to police officers and was found in possession of cocaine when he was arrested. Although he allowed police to search his room, no drugs were found as a result of the search. White’s assistance did not result in solving any crimes and it did not lead to the arrest of other persons.
Therefore, the trial court erred in entering downward departure sentences on this basis.
Accordingly, we reverse White’s sentences and remand for resentencing within the guidelines. Id.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Knox, 990 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…al act. See § 921.0016(4)©, Fla. Stat. (2006). A defendant’s cooperation with the State can only be a basis for a downward departure sentence where the defendant’s assistance results in solving a crime or the arrest of other persons. State v. White, 894 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). A downward departure sentence is not justified merely because the defendant cooperated after his offense was discovered because that cooperation did not solve a crime. Id.; see also State v. Ertel, 886 So. 2d 423, 425 (Fla.…
-
State v. Geoghagan, 27 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…that the defendant “cooperated with the State to resolve the current offense.” However, “a departure sentence cannot be based on cooperation where the assistance does not result in solving any crimes or the arrest of other persons.” State v. White, 894 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding invalid the trial court’s reason for departure that the defendant confessed and allowed the police to search his home). Third, the trial court noted appel-lee’s underlying conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct.…
-
State v. Shamichael Juliet Johnson, 193 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ence is not warranted where a defendant merely “cooperated after [the] offense was discovered because that cooperation did not solve a crime.”” Id. Johnson’s cooperation did not resolve the current offenses or any other offense. See State v. White, 894 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2Q05)(holding that cooperation was insufficient where the defendant’s cooperation was based on his confession to the charged crimes). See also State v. Collins, 482 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Johnson’s cooperation thus does no…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Randall, 746 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- State v. Dreama Adea Bell, 854 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- State v. Ertel, 886 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)