With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". there is no competent substantial evidence to sup-supsuch findings. [5] Robinson’s admission of guilt and entry of an open plea is not a legally valid reason for departure. See Geoghagan, 27 So.3d at 113. A defen-defenplea only provides justification for downward departure when there has been a “legitimate, uncoerced plea bargain” with the State. Id.; see also § 921.0026(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). No such plea bargain existed in this case. Fourth, the potential double jeopardy “issues” referenced by the trial court are unfounded and do not provide a legally valid basis for the downward departure even if (as the trial court and the parties appear to assume ) the two charges against Robinson are based upon the possession and sale of the same cocaine. See McCloud, 577 So.2d at 939-40 (<HOLDING>); McMullen v. State, 876 So.2d 589, 590 (Fla.

A: holding that double jeopardy does not preclude convictions for both sale and possession of the same cocaine within 1000 feet of a church
B: holding that double jeopardy does not prohibit dual convictions for possession and sale of the same quantum cocaine
C: 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
D: holding that double jeopardy does not preclude convictions for both sale and possession of the same cocaine within 1000 feet of a school
B.