State v. Grant, 2D04-872.
| Decision Date | 03 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D04-872.,2D04-872. |
| Citation | 912 So.2d 321 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James A. GRANT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
The State challenges the downward departure sentence that was imposed following James Grant's entry of an open no contest plea to sale or delivery of cocaine. Because we agree with the State that the downward departure was improper, we reverse.
The offense of sale or delivery of cocaine was committed during an undercover drug sting operation; the buyer was an undercover officer. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that Grant was entitled to a downward departure sentence because the undercover officer was "an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident" pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2002).
The trial court reluctantly agreed, stating:
As argued by the State at the sentencing hearing, while it is reasonable to depart downward in those cases in which there is a readily identifiable individual who can be considered the victim, it is not reasonable to depart where there is no readily identifiable victim. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004) defines the word victim as follows: "A person harmed by a crime, tort, or other wrong." While the undercover officer here was a readily identifiable individual, he could not be considered a "victim" because he was not harmed by the offense. If anything, the broad, generic term "society" would best describe the victim here. However, we do not believe that the legislature intended, when it created a mitigator for victim initiation, to include law enforcement and society in the definition of "victim" so as to allow courts to depart downward in undercover drug operations. Because there was no specific, identifiable individual who could be considered the victim, we conclude that it was improper to depart downward on the grounds that the victim was the initiator.
Finally, despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Murphy
...to section 921.0026(2)(f), Florida Statutes.” State v. Holsey, 908 So.2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also State v. Grant, 912 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that undercover officer involved in sting operation was not victim of defendant's drug offense as to support downw......
-
State v. Murphy
...to section 921.0026(2)(f), Florida Statutes." State v. Holsey, 908 So. 2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also State v. Grant, 912 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that undercover officer involved in stingoperation was not victim of defendant's drug offense as to support down......
-
State v. Fureman, 5D12–2778.
...v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing State v. Holsey, 908 So.2d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ; State v. Grant, 912 So.2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ). In addition to resting on an improper factual basis, the trial court's finding of unsophistication fails to account ......