State v. Mathis · No. 2D2025-2309 (Fla. 2d DCA) · Decided October 9, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
A Manatee County judge could not depart below the guidelines for a man convicted of selling cocaine near a church because of the small amount of drugs involved or because of the volunteer work he did while jailed awaiting trial, the Second District Court of Appeal has held. The court reversed the sentence of community control and probation and remanded for resentencing.
What Happened
In April 2023, Manatee County Sheriff’s Office detectives ran an undercover drug-buying operation in the parking lot of a Bradenton convenience store. According to the opinion, Wayne Carlton Mathis at first walked away when a detective asked for drugs in exchange for a ride, but he later agreed, took $60, and returned with 0.8 grams of crack cocaine. The sale took place within 1,000 feet of a church. A jury found him guilty of selling or delivering cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship.
Mathis, who was sixty-four at sentencing, had eighteen prior felony convictions on his scoresheet, including robbery, possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, resisting an officer with violence, grand theft, and escape; five of his drug-related convictions were for sale or delivery. His lowest permissible sentence was 69.75 months’ imprisonment. The State recommended seven years.
In mitigation, a sheriff’s lieutenant testified that Mathis had been an excellent inmate during his two years in jail on the offense and served as a trustee in the jail kitchen. Mathis testified that he was head cook for the jail staff, had worked 5,776 hours in the kitchen, and had received no payment, gain time, or other benefit for the work. He also testified that he routinely spoke to young people in Teen Court and presented a letter of appreciation from the Teen Court supervisor.
Mathis’s counsel did not move for a downward departure, conceding there was no basis for one. The trial court, which called Mathis’s record “horrific,” departed on its own, acknowledging there were no statutory grounds and relying on three nonstatutory ones: the relatively small amount of cocaine, the jail kitchen volunteer hours, and the Teen Court volunteer hours. The court said it was “abhorrent to send somebody to prison for almost 70 months for this quantity of cocaine,” and stated that it would depart on the two volunteer-work grounds even if it was wrong about drug quantity. It imposed one year of community control followed by two years of drug offender probation. The State objected and appealed.
What the Court Held
The court first held that the State’s general objection preserved the issue. It noted that the Second District has “repeatedly held” the State need not tell the trial court specifically that a departure reason is invalid, and it cited a Fourth District decision, State v. Clark, 770 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), that disagreed with that rule. Given that Mathis conceded there was no statutory basis, the trial court agreed, and the court departed anyway on three nonstatutory grounds “one of which it acknowledged was on shaky ground,” the general objection was enough here.
On the merits, the court held that departing based on the quantity of drugs is not consistent with legislative sentencing policy, relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwaters v. State, 519 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1988). Nor, it said, is departing based on the judge’s personal belief that the lowest permissible sentence overstates the seriousness of the offense.
The volunteer-work grounds “fare no better,” the court wrote. “Mathis’s volunteer work while incarcerated and awaiting trial, although undeniably laudable, does not relate to the nature of the crime itself or to Mathis’s offense conduct or level of culpability; consequently, a departure on that basis does not appear to be consistent with legislative sentencing policy.” Like the Third District in State v. Paulk, 813 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), the panel said it could find no “case law that suggests that good work in the community is a valid basis for departure.”
In a footnote, the court said it understood the trial court’s desire to see Mathis rewarded, but the discretion to reduce a prison sentence for good works and good behavior while incarcerated is vested in the Department of Corrections through gain time. The departure on that basis, it wrote, “constituted an impermissible end run around the Department.”
The court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. Citing Jackson v. State, 64 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2011), it noted that on remand the trial court is not precluded from departing downward on other grounds as long as the departure “comports with the principles and criteria” of the Criminal Punishment Code.
Why It Matters
The opinion holds that the amount of drugs involved is not a valid nonstatutory ground for a downward departure, because the Legislature already uses drug quantity to set penalties, and that a defendant’s volunteer work while jailed awaiting trial is not one either, because it does not relate to the crime, the offense conduct, or the defendant’s culpability. It also holds that, on this record, the State’s general objection was enough to preserve its challenge, while acknowledging the Fourth District has taken a different view of general objections. The trial court remains free on remand to depart on other grounds that comply with the Criminal Punishment Code.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Second District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 2D2025-2309 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Manatee County (Judge Frederick P. Mercurio) |
| Opinion by | Judge Rothstein-Youakim (Judges Sleet and Atkinson concurring) |
| Decided | October 9, 2026 |
| Result | Sentence reversed; remanded for resentencing |