Chudeusz v. State

508 So. 2d 418, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1189, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8109
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 7, 1987
DocketNo. 86-1460
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 418 (Chudeusz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chudeusz v. State, 508 So. 2d 418, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1189, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8109 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

This appeal is submitted with an An-ders 1 brief, and we agree that no trial errors are demonstrated.

Defendant was convicted on Count I of attempted trafficking in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis, a second degree felony. On Count II, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in excess of 100 pounds of cannabis, a first degree felony. § 893.135(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). This [419]*419statute requires that a person convicted of such conspiracy be punished “as if he had actually committed such prohibited act.” Therefore, under the conspiracy conviction, it was mandatory that defendant be fined $25,000 and be imprisoned for a minimum period of three years. § 893.135(1)(a)1. State v. Niemcow, 505 So.2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The trial court correctly imposed the $25,000 fine, but incorrectly imposed it on Count I where it is not required instead of on Count II, where it is. Defendant’s five year concurrent sentences of imprisonment to be followed by five years of probation are not departure sentences because the incarcerative portion is within the recommended guidelines range, and the combined period of incarceration and probation does not exceed the maximum statutory penalty for either crime. See McDowell v. State, 491 So.2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701, Committee Note (d)(12). The convictions are affirmed. The sentences are vacated and the cause is remanded for entry of corrected sentences. The defendant need not be present at re-sentencing.

Convictions AFFIRMED.

Sentences VACATED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Suarez v. State
635 So. 2d 154 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Thrasher v. State
528 So. 2d 474 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
508 So. 2d 418, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1189, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chudeusz-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.