be difficult to find many cases that would not qualify for a departure sentence, thus making departure the rule rather than the exception”). [4] Robinson’s lack of criminal activity since his arrest for the charged offenses is not a legally valid reason for departure. State v. Stephenson, 973 So.2d 1259, 1264-65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“That a defendant refrains from criminal activity for a short time is an insufficient reason for a downward departure.”); see also State v. Geoghagan, 27 So.3d 111, 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); State v. Nathan, 632 So.2d 127, 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Moreover, to the extent the trial court’s statements concerning the sheriffs “confidence” in Robinson were intended to be findings that Robinson is rehabilitated and poses no fu-futhreat or danger to s DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Thomas v. State, 61 So.3d 1157, 1158
holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy 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 convictions for trafficking possession and simple possession ofcocaine offended double jeopardy protections 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