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.
A defendant seeking a downward departure sentence based on the Department of Corrections' inability to provide specialized treatment need not bear the burden of proving DOC cannot accommodate such treatment; instead, the State must present evidence on this issue at sentencing.
[1] In a sentencing proceeding where a defendant seeks a downward departure based on the Department of Corrections' inability to provide necessary specialized treatment, the…
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 entered an open no contest plea and received a sentence. He appealed, arguing he was entitled to a downward departure sentence under sec…
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 Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Matthew Dixon appealed his sentence following his entry of an open no contest plea. We affirmed Appellant’s sentence in conformance with State v. Holmes, 909 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), which required Appellant to present evidence that the Department of Corrections could not accommodate his necessary, specialized treatment in order to receive a downward departure sentence under section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2013). See Dixon v. State, 128 So.3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), review dismissed, SC14-196, 2014 WL 1237108 (Fla.2014). The Florida Supreme Court has since disapproved of Holmes, 1 quashed this Court’s decision, and remanded the cause.
Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing in order to give the State an opportunity to present evidence as to whether DOC can provide the required specialized treatment and for the trial court to consider whether to render a downward departure sentence. See Chubbuck, 141 So.3d at 1168-69 (quoting Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1067-68 (Fla.1999)) (reaffirming that the process for departing from the guidelines requires the trial court to consider: (1) whether it legally can depart; and (2) if satisfied that it could, whether it should depart). We find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments, and so affirm in all other respects.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WETHERELL, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Donald B. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Chubbuck, 141 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 2014)
- Campbell v. State, 909 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Dixon v. State, 128 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)