one of the points made in the majority opinion. The trial court imposed a downward departure sentence, concluding that the departure was necessary to achieve “sentencing parity” and to correct what the court perceived to be a “gross disparity” be-twéen Perez-Diaz’s guideline sentence and the negotiated sentence imposed on the co-defendant. I conclude that, given the circumstances of the instant case, this is not a permissible basis for a downward departure. As the majority opinion notes, a trial court does have the discretion, under proper circumstances and an adequate showing, to match thé sentences of two defendants where the previously-sentenced co-defendant is at least equally as culpable as the defendant being sentenced. See, e.g., Sanders v. State, 510 So.2d 296, 298 (Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>); State v. Fernandez, 927 So.2d 939 (Fla. 3d
holding that if a criminal defendant alleges that his sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates this court will review the sentence even if the defendant failed to make a timely objection in the district court holding that the court could in its discretion consider the fact that the defendant was arrested while on bail awaiting trial in determining what sentence to impose even though the arrest did not result in an indictment of the defendant holding trial court in determining proper sentence of a defendant may validly consider codefendants belowguideline sentence where the codefendant is at least if not more culpable than defendant holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the guidelines it is clear  that the appellant waived any argument that he was entitled to a belowguideline sentence holding defendant who instigated incident resulting in homicide more culpable than codefendant