MATTHEW DIXON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed Dixon's sentence for DUI manslaughter despite his argument that the trial court failed to consider his physical condition and need for specialized treatment as a mitigating factor, following State v. Holmes.
A trial court need not depart downward from a sentence based on a defendant's physical condition or need for specialized treatment when there is no evidence the Department of Corrections cannot accommodate such treatment.
[1] Under Florida law, a trial court need not depart downward from a sentence based on a defendant's physical condition or need for specialized treatment when there is no evi…
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 intelligenceMatthew Dixon drove on the wrong side of a major roadway while intoxicated (BAC 0.281), collided with another vehicle, killing the driver and severely…
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 Dui Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Dixon appeals the sentence imposed following his entry of an open no contest plea to charges arising out of a car accident that occurred when he was driving on the wrong side of a major roadway and collided with another vehicle, killing the other driver and severely injuring the driver’s minor daughter. A toxicology report disclosed Appellant’s blood alcohol content to be 0.281.
Mr. Dixon’s strongest argument on appeal is that the trial court improperly failed to consider his physical condition and apparent need for specialized treatment as a mitigating factor that justified a downward departure in his sentence. See § 921.0026(2)(d), Fla. Stat. We recognize that there is a split of authority among district courts in Florida in this area, but affirm the trial court’s adherence to State v. Holmes, 909 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Under Holmes, Appellant’s argument fails because there is no evidence in the record that the Department of Corrections could not or would not accommodate needed treatment. But see State v. Chub-buck, 83 So.3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (en banc) & State v. Owens, 95 So.3d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (en banc) (receding from decisions that followed Holmes and certifying a direct and express conflict). We find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments.
AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tangie L. Thomas-Nance v. Gayland Marcio Nance, 189 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…repayment provisions to account for changed circumstances. The court cannot, however, retain jurisdiction to change the amount of the original equalization payment, which is a set property division between the parties. Id.; see also Evans v. Evans, 128 So. 3d 972, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing an equitable distribution scheme that allowed the wife to pay the husband for his interest in the marital home over a period of twenty years because the award “effectively deprives the former husband of his presen…
-
Kinsey v. State, 135 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…alify for a downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(d). See State v. Chubbuck, 83 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (en banc); State v. Owens, 95 So. 3d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (en banc). As this Court recognized recently in Dixon v. State, 128 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), we are bound by our own precedent to affirm. But if it were an open question, we would find the reasoning of Chubbuck, and Owens strongly persuasive. In Chubbuck, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, determined…
-
Dixon v. State, 154 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Chubbuck, 83 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Campbell v. State, 909 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- State v. Owens, 95 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)