valid reason for departure because it is considered when scoring the sentencing guidelines. State v. Sachs, 526 So.2d 48, 50 (Fla.1988); State v. Green, 511 So.2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Similarly, the fact that the DUI did not result in any personal injury does not support a downward departure because personal injury is taken into account by the guidelines. See Sachs, 526 So.2d at 50; see also § 921.0024, Fla. Stat. (1999) (showing victim injury as a consideration under the guidelines scoresheet). The trial court’s final reason for departure, that the DUI did not involve property damage, is not a valid reason for departure because a DUI with property damage is a separate crime under section 316.193(3), Florida Statutes (1999). Cf. Atwaters v. State, 519 So.2d 611, 612 (Fla. 1988) (<HOLDING>), and State v. Lisk, 523 So.2d 1260, 1260 (Fla.
holding apprendi does not require proof of knowledge as to type or quantity of drugs holding that the quantity of drugs may not be used to support a departure holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute