State v. Stanard, 5D03-458.

Citation859 So.2d 572
Decision Date21 November 2003
Docket NumberNo. 5D03-458.,5D03-458.
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ronald Alfred STANARD, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, J.

The State of Florida appeals the downward departure sentence of appellee, Ronald Stanard ["Stanard"]. The State charged Stanard with one count of burglary of a structure—non-dwelling1—and one count of possession of burglary tools.2 According to the arrest affidavit, the owner of a bagel shop had opened the back door to the store to do some loading and had left it unattended. When he walked to the back of the store again, he noticed that the walk-in freezer door was cracked open. The owner observed Stanard exit the freezer carrying two top round roast beefs. The owner confronted Stanard, who put down the meat, explained that he was hungry and then rode off on a bicycle. Police arrested Stanard and found a pair of tin snips, a small flashlight, a cutting razor, and multi-purpose pliers in his pocket.

Stanard entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, he decided to change his plea. At the change of plea hearing, Stanard requested that he be sentenced to a drug-rehabilitation program at Phoenix House that he had previously attended. The trial court noted that would be a downward departure. Stanard maintained the departure was warranted because he had cooperated with the State, he had admitted to the crime, he had harmed no one, he hadn't actually broken into the business, and he had committed the offense in an unsophisticated manner. Stanard said that he was on drugs at the time that he had committed the offense and that he was hungry.

The State objected to the downward departure. It pointed out that Stanard's drug addiction could not be a mitigating factor pursuant to section 921.0016(4), Florida Statutes (2002). Moreover, the State argued that Stanard had not given the State any information that could help it.

The court noted that Stanard did not actually break into the store and when confronted was not violent. The court then said:

[h]e didn't do what we generally consider a burglary. He didn't hurt the person. Although he was face to face with him. And talked to him. Although it's not—in and of itself. He's crying out for help for his drug problem. I know that in and of itself is not sufficient. But if they want to take him out of Phoenix. And put him in prison. And have somebody out on the street that does need help. Then that's up to the State.

After the hearing ended, the trial court placed on the record as an additional reason for the downward departure that Stanard was remorseful.

The trial court sentenced Stanard to drug-offender probation for a period of five years (count I) and five years of drug-offender probation (count II) to be served concurrently.

On appeal, the State argues that the trial court's finding that Stanard did not commit what is "normally...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Wagner v. State, 5D03-756.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 4, 2005
    ...that unless proper and sufficient grounds are presented, the trial court may not impose a downward departure sentence. State v. Stanard, 859 So.2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Wagner was further advised that even if such grounds did exist, the trial court had discretion whether to impose a down......

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