Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Delisi v. State
Citations: 627 So. 2d 117; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11965; 1993 WL 496035Docket: No. 92-00358
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 30, 1993; Florida; State Appellate Court
Charles DeLisi appeals multiple convictions related to drug trafficking, conspiracy, and RICO act violations, specifically contesting the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines. His convictions are affirmed, but the sentences are reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing. DeLisi was part of a large-scale marijuana trafficking operation with his brothers, Richard and Theodore "Teddy" DeLisi, resulting in several trials. Various defendants received sentences ranging from probation to sixty-five years; Charles received the maximum aggregate sentence of sixty-five years. During the sentencing hearing, testimonies indicated that Teddy was the leader of the organization, with Richard following, and Charles being a subordinate "worker." The trial court acknowledged this hierarchy but classified Charles as a "supervising partner," which it cited as the reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines. However, the court did not provide additional justification for the upward departure, despite both Richard and Teddy receiving sentences within the guidelines previously. The court relied on precedent that equated leadership roles with reasons for upward departure, but the appellate court determined that being a "supervising partner" does not equate to being a ringleader and is thus insufficient grounds for departure. The appellate court emphasized that all drug operations involve some level of supervision, which should not justify harsher sentencing. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the sentence and mandated that DeLisi be resentenced within the established guidelines. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Frank and Judge Campbell.