Banzo v. State, 84-1130

Decision Date27 February 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-1130,84-1130
Citation10 Fla. L. Weekly 547,464 So.2d 620
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 547 Ernesto BANZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Norman S. Cannella of Norman S. Cannella, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LOGAN, PAUL E., Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by the trial court after a plea of guilty. We reverse the sentence.

Appellant was charged by information with trafficking in cocaine in an amount of two hundred (200) grams or more, but less than four hundred (400) grams. Appellant entered a guilty plea and affirmatively elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. After a pre-sentence investigation and guidelines scoresheet were completed, a sentencing hearing was held on April 27, 1984. Both the pre-sentence investigation and the guidelines scoresheet recommended a sentence of from three and one-half to four and one-half years. Both parties agreed that the minimum mandatory sentence of five years would take precedence over the recommended guideline sentence.

The trial court chose to depart from the recommended guideline sentence and imposed the maximum sentence allowed by finding:

THE COURT: Okay. You object. You want me to follow the guidelines. I am not following them. I am going to sentence him the maximum, compelling reasons being: Number one, the facts speak for themselves. This is no penny ante deal, just buying nickel-dime baggies, since you can get $40,000 for a kilo. That is one of the compelling reasons, the amount and the value, for me to go outside the guidelines and sentence the maximum sentence. The second reason which I consider as compelling a reason to go outside of the guidelines as I can possibly think of--I want that in the order--that he has not cooperated with law enforcement. We do not know the source of these drugs. He had the opportunity to do so and did not do so. I make an adjudication of guilt. Other than the fact that you object to me going outside the guidelines, can you show cause why sentence should not be pronounced at this time?

MR. CANELLA: No legal cause, Judge, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's the judgment, order and sentence of this Court that the defendant be confined in the Florida State Prison for thirty years, minimum mandatory, five. Thirty years maximum, five-year minimum mandatory.

The written order setting forth the trial court's reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines states:

1. The Defendant engaged in and pled guilty to a very serious offense. The defendant delivered approximately 1,000 grams of cocaine to undercover detectives in exchange for a purported sale price of $44,000.

2. Since his arrest and the date on which he entered his plea of guilty, the defendant has failed to cooperate with law enforcement officers and the State of Florida in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Hall v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1987
    ...is being sentenced), is not a valid ground for aggravating. See Trainor v. State, 468 So.2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Banzo v. State, 464 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In any event, it has been determined that this is not a permissible ground for departure. Baldwin v. State, 494 So.2d at 503.......
  • Bass v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 1986
    ...for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving." This reason therefore was also invalid. See Banzo v. State, 464 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also, Francis v. State, 492 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We note that this court has previously certified to the supreme ......
  • Allen v. State, 84-1962
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 1985
    ...sentences. Von Carter v. State, 468 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Marshall v. State, 468 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Banzo v. State, 464 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), Fletcher v. State, 457 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (cases holding that the court cannot consider factors relating to in......
  • Tran v. State, 94-03677
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1995
    ..."[c]harges arising from the same criminal episode which are not filed cannot be used as reasons for departure." Banzo v. State, 464 So.2d 620, 621-622 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); accord Young v. State, 502 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Moreover, although we recognize that robbery was alleged in th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT