Graham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Graham v. State

608 So. 2d 123, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11366, 1992 WL 317852

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1992

DocketNo. 91-03957

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 608 So. 2d 123 (Graham 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

Graham v. State, 608 So. 2d 123, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11366, 1992 WL 317852 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

We 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).

Although we affirm this lawful sentence, we note that the trial court has the authori[124]*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.

Affirmed.

LEHAN, C.J., and PATTERSON, J„ concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

We 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).

Although we affirm this lawful sentence, we note that the trial court has the authori[124]*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.

Affirmed.

LEHAN, C.J., and PATTERSON, J„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 123, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11366, 1992 WL 317852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack