Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

739 So. 2d 629

Docket No. 98-2973.

State v. Ford

The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Colin Lincoln FORD, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 16, 1999.

Rehearing Denied September 22, 1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-06-16

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2013

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“does not, under any circumstances, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under the sentencing guidelines.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Owens

Relies on State v. Henriquez · 728 So. 2d 748 - Jordan v. State · Morris v. Morris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-06-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

¶2Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

¶3Before JORGENSON, COPE, and GODERICH, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The State appeals from a downward departure sentencing order. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

¶6Defendant 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.

¶7We 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.

¶8Reversed and remanded with directions.

¶9JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur.

¶10COPE, J., dissents.

¶11COPE, J. (dissenting).

¶12I 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 Statutes *630 (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(1)(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.

NOTES

¶13[1] Our review of the record demonstrates that the State's objection was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review.

/739/so2d/629 · .json · Public domain