there is no competent substantial evidence to sup-supsuch findings. [5] Robinson’s admission of guilt and entry of an open plea is not a legally valid reason for departure. See Geoghagan, 27 So.3d at 113. A defen-defenplea only provides justification for downward departure when there has been a “legitimate, uncoerced plea bargain” with the State. Id.; see also § 921.0026(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). No such plea bargain existed in this case. Fourth, the potential double jeopardy “issues” referenced by the trial court are unfounded and do not provide a legally valid basis for the downward departure even if (as the trial court and the parties appear to assume ) the two charges against Robinson are based upon the possession and sale of the same cocaine. See McCloud, 577 So.2d at 939-40 (<HOLDING>); McMullen v. State, 876 So.2d 589, 590 (Fla.
holding that double jeopardy does not preclude convictions for both sale and possession of the same cocaine within 1000 feet of a church holding that double jeopardy does not prohibit dual convictions for possession and sale of the same quantum cocaine 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 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 dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy