Cauthen v. State

Appellant raises two points on this appeal from his split sentence on a charge of possession of cannabis.

First, appellant contends the court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines based on the quantity of cannabis he possessed. Because this court has previously approved using the quantity of marijuana as a reason for departing from sentencing guidelines, Mitchell v. State, 458 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Flournoy v. State, 507 So.2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), we affirm this reason for departure. In view of conflicting decisions on this point of law, we certify, as we did…