MANUEL BETANCOURT, 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 Fifth District reversed a downward departure sentence denial and remanded for resentencing after the court changed its precedent to hold that defendants need not prove DOC cannot provide specialized medical treatment.
A defendant seeking a downward departure sentence based on specialized medical treatment need not prove that the Department of Corrections cannot provide such treatment.
[1] A defendant seeking a downward departure sentence based on specialized medical treatment is not required to prove that the Department of Corrections cannot provide the ne…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a defendant is not required to establish that the needed treatment is unavailable in DOC”
The court explained the new holding adopted in State v. Owens that changed prior precedent.
Betancourt pled no contest to various crimes and sought a downward departure sentence based on a need for specialized medical treatment. After the tri…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Manuel Betancourt pled no contest to various crimes and received a downward departure sentence based on an alleged need for specialized medical treatment. The State appealed, and this Court reversed, concluding that Betancourt failed to prove with competent, substantial evidence, that the necessary medical treatment he required could not be provided by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”). See State v. Betancourt, 40 So.3d 53, 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). On remand, a new sentencing hearing was conducted and again, Betancourt asserted that he needed specialized medical treatment that was not available from the DOC. The trial court, properly concluding that it was bound by our earlier decision, found that Betancourt failed to demonstrate that DOC could not provide the necessary care and treatment.
While this appeal was pending, this Court receded from its numerous prior decisions and has now held that a defendant is not required to establish that the needed treatment is unavailable in DOC. See State v. Owens, 95 So.3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(en banc). Betancourt’s resen-tencing occurred before we decided Owens. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of our decision and originally indicated a desire to impose a downward departure sentence, we reverse Betancourt’s sentence and remand this matter for re-sentencing so that the court may consider our holding in Owens.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Owens, 95 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- State v. Betancourt, 40 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)