STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID DUGAN AND NOYES GREEN BURROUGHS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed the dismissal of drug possession charges against two defendants who successfully completed court-ordered substance abuse treatment programs. The court held that Florida Statutes §893.15 and §397.705(1) authorize trial judges to dismiss drug charges upon successful completion of treatment, and affirmed the dismissals.
The trial judge has authority to dismiss drug charges after successful completion of treatment. Sections 893.15 and 397.705(1) of the Florida Statutes authorize such dismissal because they permit the court to require treatment "in lieu of" penalties or probation and "instead of" other action, language broader than merely providing sentencing alternatives.
[1] A trial judge has the authority to dismiss drug charges after a defendant successfully completes a court-ordered substance abuse program.
[2] Statutes authorizing court-ordered participation in substance abuse programs "in lieu of, any penalty or probation" or "instead of ... …
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such required participation may be imposed in addition to, or in lieu of, any penalty or probation otherwise prescribed by law.”
Section 893.15 language establishing that treatment can substitute for traditional penalties, supporting authority for dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDugan entered a no contest plea to cocaine possession and was placed on probation conditioned on completing a one-year drug treatment program with adj…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals the issue is whether the trial judge had the authority to dismiss drug charges after appellees completed a drug program pursuant to chapter 397, Florida Statutes. We conclude that he did and affirm.
Appellee Dugan entered a no contest plea to possession of cocaine and agreed to complete a drug program. He was placed on probation on the condition that he attend drug treatment for a period of one year and adjudication of guilt was withheld. Appellee Burroughs, who was also charged with possession of cocaine, did not enter a plea, but at the court’s suggestion agreed to complete a drug treatment program. Both appellees, after successfully completing the programs, moved the court to dismiss the charges, and the court did so over the state’s objection.
Section 893.15, Florida Statutes (1993), the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, provides:
Any person who violates s.893.13(1)(f) or 1(g) relating to possession may, in the discretion of the trial judge, be required to participate in a substance abuse services program approved or regulated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Ser vices pursuant to the provisions of chapter 897, provided the director of such program approves the placement of the defendant in such program. Such required participation may be imposed in addition to, or in lieu of, any penalty or probation otherwise prescribed by law. However, the total time of such penalty, probation, and program participation shall not exceed the maximum length of sentence possible for the offense. (Footnote omitted.) (Emphasis added.)
Section 397.705(1), Florida Statutes (1993), which is part of the chapter entitled “Substance Abuse Services,” provides in part:
AUTHORITY TO REFER. — If any offender, including but not limited to any minor, is charged with or convicted of a crime, the court or criminal justice authority with jurisdiction over that offender may require the offender to receive services from a service provider licensed under this chapter. If referred by the court, the referral may be instead of or in addition to final adjudication, imposition of penalty or sentence, or other action. (Emphasis added.)
The state argues that these two statutes do not authorize dismissal; however, we do not agree.
Section 893.15 authorizes the court to order participation in a treatment program “in lieu of, any penalty or probation” and section 397.705(1) similarly authorizes referral for treatment by the court “instead of ... other action.” This language is clearly broader than the interpretation which the state urges on us, which is that these statutes only provide for sentencing alternatives to imprisonment or probation, but do not authorize dismissal. Moreover, section 397.705(1) authorizes the court to require people who are only “charged” with a crime to get treatment, which is precisely what happened with appellee Burroughs. The state has not explained what must happen to Burroughs after his completion of treatment, if the court cannot dismiss the charges against him.
Even if the statutes could somehow be interpreted in the manner urged by the state, it would mean that the statutes are susceptible of different interpretations. Under those circumstances our lenity statute, section 775.021(1), Florida Statues (1993), would require the construction most favorable to appellees.
The state’s reliance on State v. Turner, 636 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and the cases cited therein, for the proposition that the sole authority as to whether to prosecute rests with the state attorney is misplaced, since in those cases there was no statute which authorized dismissal. Our interpretation of this statute, which is that it does authorize dismissal, makes Turner distinguishable.
Affirmed.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
KLEIN, Judge.
We deny the state’s motion for rehearing, but grant its motion for certification and certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES CHAPTER 397.705, FLORIDA STATUTES, AUTHORIZE A TRIAL COURT TO DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST A DEFENDANT UPON HIS COMPLETION OF A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM OVER OBJECTION BY THE STATE?
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. R.B., 711 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…oughs moved to dismiss the charges against them. Over the state’s objection, the court granted the motions and dismissed the drug charges pursuant to section 397.705(1), Florida Statutes (1993). This court affirmed the dismissal. See State v. Dugan, 665 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In approving of this court’s decision in Dugan, the Supreme Court stated that section 397.705(1), Florida Statutes (1993) gives trial courts the discretion to dismiss charges against a substance abuse impaired offender who succe…
-
State v. Dugan, 685 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1996)…estion certified to be of great public importance: DOES CHAPTER 397.705, FLORIDA STATUTES, AUTHORIZE A TRIAL COURT TO DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST A DEFENDANT UPON HIS COMPLETION OF A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM OVER OBJECTION BY THE STATE? State v. Dugan, 665 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (motion for rehearing and motion for certification of question). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court below.…1 / 2
-
State v. McMICHAEL, 687 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. The above-styled cases are consolidated for the purpose of the issuance of this opinion. We affirm on authority of State v. Dugan, 665 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA), dec. appr’d, 685 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.1996). DELL, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Turner, 636 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)