uniformly across the state irrespec-irrespecof the nature and size of the communi-communiin which the crime was committed. See § 921.002, Fla. Stat. (2011). Moreover, under the rationale expressed by the trial court, downward departure sentences could become the norm rather than the exception in Hamilton County and similar locales. Cf. State v. Thompkins, 113 So.3d 95, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (reversing downward departure sentence based upon trial court’s observation that the crime was based upon “anger and stupidity” because those terms are not part of the lexicon of the CPC, and explaining that “if trial courts are permitted to impose sentences below the minimum guideline range based on their perception that a crime was committed out of anger and stupidity, it wo Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>). Finally, contrary to Robinson’s tipsy
holding that double jeopardy does not preclude convictions for both sale and possession of the same cocaine within 1000 feet of a school holding that double jeopardy does not prohibit dual convictions for possession and sale of the same quantum cocaine holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy holding that convictions for trafficking possession and simple possession ofcocaine offended double jeopardy protections holding that convictions for two counts of possession of one quantity of cocaine constituted double jeopardy and fundamental error reversing one possession conviction and remanding for resentencing