and less refined manner than other first-time DUI manslaughter offenses. See State v. Alonso, 31 So.3d 265, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing State v. Merritt, 714 So.2d 1153, 1154 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), to define the term “unsophisticated” as “artless, simple and not refined”). When Kezal failed to do this, the trial court rejected her request for a downward departure. The majority’s conclusion that the court expressed its view that it did not have the legal authority to depart is not supported by the transcript. It is abundantly clear to me from the transcript of the entire sentencing hearing that the trial court fully understood its options and simply did not find a departure sentence appropriate for Kezal on any statutory ground. See Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1068 (Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). In my view, the transcript clearly
holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that if there is a legal basis for departure the trial court must then determine whether it should depart ie whether departure is indeed the best sentencing option for the defendant in the pending case and that this decision is a judgment call within the sound discretion of the court and will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and grant trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the supreme court will not upset the courts ruling unless there is a sufficient showing of abuse of discretion