Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

717 So. 2d 625

Docket No. 98-719.

State v. Brown

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harold Lloyd BROWN, Jr., Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 25, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-09-25

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2002

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(4) Mitigating circumstances under which a departure from the sentencing guidelines is reasonably justified include, but are not limited to: * * * (d) The defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction or for a physical disability, and the defendant is amenable to treatment. * * * (5) A defendant's substance abuse or addiction, including intoxication at the time of the offense, is not a mitigating factor under subsection (4) and does not, under any circumstances, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under the sentencing guidelines. (emphasis added)”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including State v. Ford, 724 So. 2d 630 - State v. Norris

“a defendant's substance abuse or addiction, including intoxication at the time of the offense, is not a mitigating factor under subsection (4) and does not, under any circumstance, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under the sentencing guidelines.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Shorter

Relies on 515 So. 2d 748 - Shull v. Dugger · State v. McGriff

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-09-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*626 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Maximillian J. Changus, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

¶2James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Stephanie H. Park, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The State appeals the downward departure sentence for offenses committed August 9, 1997. We reverse.

¶5In departing, the trial court found two mitigating factors. First, the court indicated that it departed because Brown required specialized treatment for his addiction and was amenable to treatment. The legislature has eliminated this reason for departure for crimes occurring after July 1, 1997. § 921.0016(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Ch. 97-194, § 41, Laws of Fla.

¶6Secondly, the trial court departed on the basis that the capacity of Brown to appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired, drawing from the language in paragraph (4)(c) of section 921.0016, Florida Statutes (1997). Evidently, the trial court made the determination, as argued by defense counsel, that Brown was impaired due to his addiction to drugs. This basis was improper because "[a] defendant's substance abuse or addiction, including intoxication at the time of the offense... does not, under any circumstances, justify a downward departure from the sentence recommended under the sentencing guidelines." § 921.0016(5), Fla. Stat. (1997).

¶7Upon remand, a departure sentence may not be reimposed. Shull v. Dugger,515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). A guidelines sentence must be imposed, or alternatively, Brown may withdraw his plea. State v. McGriff,698 So.2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

¶8REVERSED and REMANDED.

¶9GOSHORN, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

/717/so2d/625 · .json · Public domain