Daniels v. State, 2D03-2102.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-2102.,2D03-2102. |
| Citation | 884 So.2d 220 |
| Parties | John Clark DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
John Clark Daniels appeals his sentences in six cases1 for crimes committed in 2001 and 2002, following his open, no contest plea and the trial court's denial of his motion for a downward departure sentence. Because the trial court incorrectly concluded that it did not have the ability to grant a downward departure in sentencing Daniels, we reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.
Section 921.0016(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2001 & 2002),2 provides that the mitigating circumstances under which a departure sentence is reasonably justified includes when "[t]he 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." At the hearing on his motion for downward departure, Daniels presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Greenberg, a licensed psychologist, to address this mitigator.
Dr. Greenberg testified that Daniels exhibited symptoms that were consistent with serious mental health problems. He noted that as a child, Daniels had received mental health treatment in a hospital or facility. After evaluating Daniels, Dr. Greenberg concluded that Daniels suffered from Dr. Greenberg opined that Daniels was amenable to treatment, and he "didn't see any indications that his mental health problems were either under control or being treated."
Dr. Greenberg further testified that Daniels needed to see a psychiatrist and undergo "extensive substance abuse treatment, counselling and therapy for people who have been reportedly victims of child abuse, extensive dual diagnosis treatment." He recommended that Daniels receive specialized mental health treatment. The treatment would not be short-term but would be a minimum of one year or more. Dr. Greenberg noted that Daniels' jail records reflect "all sorts of bizarre behavior" and are "filled with severe problems." He was skeptical that Daniels would receive appropriate psychiatric treatment while incarcerated. Daniels needed antipsychotic medication, and none of the records or statements indicated that Daniels had received such medication while incarcerated.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court stated:
Having considered the testimony of the doctor and of the defendant and review of the doctor's reports and of the record, it is this Court's decision that I cannot depart from the guidelines. The legislature has indicated those factors that the Court can consider as reasons for departing downward. One of the things the legislature has said is that I cannot consider his substance abuse. So I can't consider that. The only recommended treatment that we have right now is that he go into substance abuse treatment. There is no other basis. And I don't see any reasons, any other reasons under the statute to depart downward from the guidelines.
(Emphasis added.)
When deciding whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines under section 921.0016, the trial court must first "determine whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knarich v. State
...sentence. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla.1999); Daniels v. State, 884 So.2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.703(d)(15) defines "prior record" for the purpose of determining the defendant's sen......
-
Camacho v. State
...capacity does not mean that, as a matter of law, section 921.0026(2)(c) is unavailable as a basis for departure. Cf. Daniels v. State, 884 So.2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing for resentencing in a case involving section 921.0026(2)(d) because the trial court erroneously concluded that i......
-
Hiraldo v. State
...her ability to stay clean.Thus, the trial court's ruling was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Daniels v. State, 884 So.2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that the trial court erred in finding it did not have a legal basis to depart based on the need for specialized......