DEBORAH EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in sentencing the defendant to a midrange sentence within the guidelines, as the defendant did not qualify for the alternative treatment program.
[1] A court's indication that it will "seriously consider" a defendant's candidacy for an alternative treatment program does not constitute a commitment to sentence the defen…
[2] A defendant's disqualification from an alternative treatment program due to a medical condition does not mean the court discriminated by failing to sentence the defendant…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant pled guilty to DUI causing serious bodily injury and requested consideration for an alcohol treatment program. She was disqualified from…
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 Handicap Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Edwards pled guilty to DUI causing serious bodily injury. She ran head on into a tree seriously injuring herself and her passenger. This was her third DUI offense. During her plea, she requested that she be considered a candidate for DAYTOP FLORIDA, an alcohol treatment program. Although the court indicated that it would “seriously consider” the DAYTOP program if Edwards was found to be a good candidate for the program, he never committed to such sentence. Edwards was evaluated for the program and disqualified because she had epilepsy and was subject to seizures. At sentencing, the court imposed a midrange sentence which exceeded the statutory limit. Edwards appeals; we affirm.
First, Edwards claims that the court violated her constitutional rights because it refused to put her in the DAYTOP program as an alternative to incarceration because of her handicap — epilepsy. Her position is simply not supported by the record. Although the court indicated that it would consider the program if she qualified, it did not commit to the program even if she qualified. Her plea was not conditioned on the program in any way. Since she did not qualify for the program, the court did not and could not consider it as an alternative to incarceration. She suggests that since the DAYTOP program is discriminatory, such discrimination should be attributed to the court. We have no way of knowing, certainly not in this record, whether the DAYTOP program has a legitimate reason for excluding those with epilepsy. It might be that permitting such persons into the program would create a danger to themselves or others. But it is clear that the court did not discriminate. The condition for consideration of DAYTOP was not met. The court properly sentenced her to a guideline sentence.
Her argument that if the statutory maximum falls within the guideline range, the statutory maximum controls has now been rejected by the supreme court. See State v. Myers, 713 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1998); Mays v. State, 717 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1998).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mays v. State, 717 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Myers, 713 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1998)