Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

608 So. 2d 123

Graham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 6, 1992

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-11-06

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1993

2 state decisions

Relies on 603 So. 2d 504 - Scates v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-11-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ALTENBERND, Judge.

¶1We affirm the defendant’s judgment and sentence for purchase of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. We note that the trial court imposed a lawful sentence of five years’ incarceration, including a thrée-year minimum mandatory term. At the time the trial court imposed this mandatory minimum term, it believed it had no discretion to do otherwise. Now it is clear that the trial court had discretion to impose a sentence that did not include the mandatory minimum term. See Scates v. State, 603 So.2d 504 (Fla.1992).

¶2Although we affirm this lawful sentence, we note that the trial court has the authori*124ty to reduce or modify this sentence for a period of sixty days following the issuance of our mandate. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b). This case is apparently the defendant’s first drug conviction. An undercover police officer selected the location for this sale, an apartment complex that happened to be approximately 650 feet from a private' school. The transaction took place on a Friday night at 11:30 p.m. Thus, it is possible that the trial court may now wish to exercise the discretion that it did not realize it had at the sentencing hearing.

¶3Affirmed.

LEHAN, C.J., and PATTERSON, J„ concur.
/608/so2d/123 · .json · Public domain