FREDERICK MITCHELL, 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.
Frederick Mitchell was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions but reversed his sentence because the trial court incorrectly denied his downward departure request by requiring him to prove the Department of Corrections could not provide specialized treatment for his physical disability, when the statute requires only that he prove he has a disability requiring specialized treatment to which he is amenable.
A defendant need only establish by a preponderance of the evidence three elements to be entitled to a downward departure hearing: (1) the defendant has a physical disability; (2) which requires specialized treatment; and (3) the defendant is amenable to such treatment. Evidence of whether the DOC can provide the specialized treatment is merely one factor for the trial court's consideration, not a dispositive requirement.
[1] A defendant seeking a downward departure sentence for a physical disability must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they have a physical disability, that…
[2] A defendant's inability to prove that the Department of Corrections cannot provide specialized treatment for a physical disability is not dispositive in a motion for down…
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 intelligence“a defendant need only establish "the following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the defendant has ... a physical disability; (2) which requires specialized treatment; and (3) the defendant is amenable to such treatment."”
Establishes the new legal standard for downward departure sentences in physical disability cases, overturning the prior requirement that DOC inability to provide treatment be proven.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrederick Mitchell was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment and sentenced to concurrent sentences of nineteen m…
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 Amenability To Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
Frederick Mitchell was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment and sentenced to concurrent sentences of nineteen months’ prison. We affirm the convictions without comment. Because Mitchell could not produce evidence of the Department of Correction’s (DOC) inability to treat his physical condition, his request for a downward departure pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2012), was denied. This was error, and we reverse and remand for resentencing.
In order to receive a downward departure sentence in cases in which “the defendant requires specialized treatment for ... a physical disability,” Florida case-law had required a defendant to establish that he “required specialized treatment [which is] unavailable in the DOC.” State v. Chubbuck, 141 So.3d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 2014) (citing § 921.0026). However, the supreme court has now held, as relevant here, that a defendant need only establish “the following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the defendant has ... a physical disability; (2) which requires specialized treatment; and (3) the defendant is amenable to such treatment.” Id. at 1171 (footnote omitted). “Evidence which demonstrates that the DOC can so provide [specialized treatment] is one factor for the trial court’s consideration in deciding whether to give a downward departure sentence.” Id. In this case, the circuit court ruled that it lacked a legal basis to downward depart solely because of Mitchell’s failure to establish that DOC could not provide him with the treatment he needs. But this, we now know, is not the inquiry. Rather, Mitchell must merely prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has a physical disability (which has not been disputed), that he needs specialized treatment (which is also undisputed), *95and that he is amenable to that treatment. If he does so, the court can legally entertain Mitchell’s downward departure motion. In so doing, it is free to consider, as one factor, whether DOC can provide the necessary treatment. Mitchell’s failure to do so is not dispositive and, of course, the State may also provide evidence on this point. Accordingly, upon remand, Mitchell is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in light of Chubbuck and consistent with this opinion.
Convictions affirmed, sentence reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Childers v. State, 171 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…r unrelated to substance abuse or addiction or a physical disability for which he or she needs specialized treatment and that he or [*173] she is amenable to such treatment. See State v. Chubbuck, 141 So. 3d 1163, 1171 (Fla.2014); Mitchell v. State, 147 So. 3d 93, 94-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). A defendant need not prove that the required specialized treatment is unavailable in the Department of Corrections. Chubbuck, 141 So. 3d at 1171. Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court failed to reach the issue o…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Chubbuck, 141 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 2014)