State v. Bingham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Bingham

549 So. 2d 1173, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2439, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5706, 1989 WL 119550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1989

DocketNo. 88-02729

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 549 So. 2d 1173 (State v. Bingham) 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

State v. Bingham, 549 So. 2d 1173, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2439, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5706, 1989 WL 119550 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

The state appeals the trial court’s downward departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. We find that one of the two reasons given for departure is valid and affirm the sentence.

David Bingham pled nolo contendere to a charge of buying cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. Although the guidelines provided a range of between three and one-half to four and one-half years imprisonment, the trial court sentenced him to five years probation. The trial court gave as reasons for departing downward Bing-ham’s clean record and that under the circumstances of this case Bingham posed no danger to society.

The first reason for departure, the lack of prior record, is invalid. Sanders v. State, 510 So.2d 296 (Fla.1987). The second reason given, that Bingham posed little or no threat or danger to society, has been upheld as a valid reason for departure. State v. Sachs, 526 So.2d 48, 50 (Fla.1988). Because there was a valid reason for departure, we affirm the sentence of the trial court. See § 921.001(5), Fla. Stat. (1987); State v. Burch, 476 So.2d 663 (Fla.1985).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.) J., concur.

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