DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

CASEY HANSEN,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-261

[May 22, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-11625 CF10A.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. 

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Kenneth David Padowitz of Kenneth D. Padowitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, 

for appellee.

CONNER, J.

The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s final orders withholding 

adjudication of guilt with respect to defendant, Casey Hansen (“Hansen”). 

Because the trial court misconstrued case law and did not follow the clear 

language of the statute defining the crime and punishment for making a 

false report of a bomb threat, we reverse the judgment and sentence 

imposed for that crime and remand for the trial court to correct the final 

orders withholding adjudication of guilt as to the charge of making a false 

bomb threat.

Background

Hansen was charged by information with one count of false report of a 

bomb threat and one count of misuse of 911 or 911 system. Hansen 

entered an open plea of no contest to the charges and moved for a 

downward departure of his sentence, seeking a withhold of adjudication of 

guilt as to the false report of a bomb charge. As grounds for departure, 

Hansen relied on section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes, asserting he 
2

required specialized treatment for a mental disorder unrelated to 

substance abuse, addiction, or for a physical disability.

Hansen presented testimony in support of the asserted grounds for 

departure. In opposition, the State argued that section 790.163, Florida 

Statutes, which criminalizes false reporting of a bomb threat, prohibits 

withholding adjudication of guilt for the charge as part of a downward 

departure. The State acknowledged that while the trial court may 

generally withhold adjudication as to other crimes, in this case, the statute 

Hansen violated specifically prohibited withholding adjudication of guilt,

and instead, contains within it a particular downward departure 

consideration for a reduced or suspended sentence under certain 

circumstances which did not apply to the facts of this case. 

The trial court discussed State v. Platt, 203 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2016), which addressed a downward departure where the defendant was 

charged with false report of a bomb threat. Id. The trial court interpreted 

Platt to allow the trial court to withhold adjudication of guilt. Relying on 

Platt, the trial court granted Hansen’s motion for downward departure over 

the State’s objection, withheld adjudication, and sentenced Hansen to five 

years of probation. The State gave notice of appeal.

Appellate Analysis

Hansen was charged with false reporting of a bomb threat in violation 

of section 790.163, Florida Statutes (2015). The State maintains, as it did 

below, that the general statute authorizing downward departure did not 

permit the trial court to withhold adjudication of guilt where section 

790.163(2) expressly prohibits withholding of adjudication, and was more 

recent and more specific than the downward departure statute.

Section 790.163(1), Florida Statutes (2015) defines the crime of making 

a false report “concerning the placing or planting of any bomb, dynamite, 

other deadly explosive, or weapon of mass destruction as defined in s. 

790.166[.]” § 790.163(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). Section 790.163(2) provides 

as follows:

Notwithstanding any other law, adjudication of guilt or 

imposition of sentence for a violation of this section may not be 

suspended, deferred, or withheld. However, the state attorney 

may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the 

sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this 

section and who provides substantial assistance in the 

identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his or her 

accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals. 
3

§ 790.163(2), Fla. Stat. (emphases added). 

The State focuses on the phrase “notwithstanding any other law” as 

reflecting the mandatory nature of the prohibition against withholding 

adjudication in connection with imposing a sentence for a false report of a 

bomb. The State maintains that section 790.163(2) represents an 

exception to the law giving the trial court discretion to withhold 

adjudication of guilt. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.670 (allowing a judge to 

withhold an adjudication of guilt if the judge places the defendant on 

probation where allowed by law); see also § 775.08435, Fla. Stat. (2015) 

(describing the felonies for which adjudication of guilt is prohibited). 

We agree with the State. As we have previously said:

A specific statute “covering a particular subject matter is 

controlling over a general statutory provision covering the 

same and other subjects in general terms.” Adams v. Culver, 

111 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1959). “The more specific statute is 

considered to be an exception to the general terms of the more 

comprehensive statute.” Floyd v. Bentley, 496 So. 2d 862, 864 

(Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Next, “when two statutes are in conflict, 

the later promulgated statute should prevail as the last 

expression of legislative intent.” McKendry v. State, 641 So.

2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1994) (citations omitted).

Rochester v. State, 95 So. 3d 407, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that 

the statutes which “are the legislature’s last expression of intent and 

address the specific sentencing for the type of crime committed in this 

case” control over “the general mitigating circumstances for sentencing 

any felony (except a capital felony) contained in section 921.0026.”); see 

also State v. Warner, 50 So. 3d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (the language 

of the applicable aggravated fleeing and eluding statute clearly prohibited 

a withhold of adjudication for the specific statutory violation and because 

it was the later promulgated statute, such prevailed “as the last expression 

of legislative intent” regarding sentencing on an aggravated fleeing and 

eluding charge); State v. Scriber, 991 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) 

(same).

Here, like the cases above, section 790.163(2) addresses specific 

parameters regarding withholding adjudication of guilt and reduced 

sentences with regards to the crime of false report of a bomb threat. We 

disagree with Hansen’s argument that the statutory authority to suspend 

a sentence for the crime includes the authority to withhold adjudication of 

guilt. Rule 3.670 makes clear that withholding adjudication of guilt is a 
4

function of rendering a judgment as to the commission of a crime by the 

defendant. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.670. The second sentence of section 

790.163(2) does not state that adjudication of guilt can be withheld if the 

defendant provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or 

conviction of any of his or her accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or 

principals; instead, it provides for a reduction or suspension of the 

sentence, which pertains to the length of incarceration or supervision. 

Additionally, although section 790.163 was initially enacted in 1959, as 

compared to section 921.0026, the downward departure statute, which 

went into effect in 1998, subsection 2 of section 790.163 was subsequently 

added in 2002. 2002 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2002-28 § 1. Thus, section 

790.163(2) containing the prohibition against withholding adjudication for 

false report of a bomb threat was enacted after section 921.0026, the 

downward departure statute. Accordingly, as in the cases cited above, 

section 790.163(2) is both the more recent and more specific statutory 

provision concerning the trial court’s authority to withhold adjudication of 

guilt when presented with a motion for downward departure by a 

defendant charged with making a false report of a bomb threat. 

Although the trial court considered Platt, at the sentencing hearing,

Platt does not discuss any interpretation of section 793.163(2) because 

that statutory provision was apparently not argued by the state in that 

case. Instead, the state’s argument in Platt was that the trial court erred 

because (1) it withheld adjudication of guilt for the offense without a 

written request from the state as required by sections 775.08435(1)(b)1. 

and 2., Florida Statutes (2015), and (2) there was insufficient competent, 

substantial evidence to support the grounds asserted for a downward 

departure. Id. at 195. The Fifth District agreed with the state that the 

grounds for downward departure articulated by the trial court (that the 

offense was committed in unsophisticated manner and the defendant’s 

cooperation with the state to resolve the offense) were not supported by 

competent substantial evidence, reversed the portion of the judgment 

withholding adjudication, and remanded for reconsideration. Id. at 197. 

However, at the end of the opinion, the Fifth District added a footnote 

which stated:

Although not properly addressed by the State in this appeal, 

on remand, we direct the trial court to section 790.163(2), 

Florida Statutes (2015), “False Report About Planting Bomb, 

Explosive, or Weapon of Mass Destruction; Penalty,” which 

provides: “[n]otwithstanding any other law, adjudication of 

guilt or imposition of sentence for a violation of this section 

may not be suspended, deferred, or withheld.”
5

Id. at 197, n.3. 

The record in this case reflects that, in reviewing Platt, the trial court 

inferred that the Fifth District would not have remanded the sentencing 

for reconsideration, if a withhold of adjudication were not even a 

possibility. However, the Fifth District’s lack of discussion concerning the 

merits of section 790.163(2) as precluding a withhold of adjudication does 

not mean that the statute does not so preclude. Instead, in our view, the 

Fifth District quoted the portion of section 790.163(2) in its footnote 

presumably to alert the trial court about the prohibition against 

withholding of guilt. As mentioned above, one of the arguments raised in 

Platt involved noncompliance with section 775.08435(1)(b)1. and 2., 

Florida Statutes, which makes withholding adjudication of guilt for 

second-degree felonies improper where the State has not requested a 

withhold in writing. In any event, the Fifth District’s decision not to 

discuss the application of section 790.163(2) does not preclude the 

conclusion that 790.163(2) plainly prohibits the trial court from 

withholding adjudication in such a case and serves as an exception to the 

general rule.

Having determined that the trial court erred by withholding 

adjudication of guilt as a permissible downward departure, we reverse the 

final orders withholding adjudication of guilt as to the charge of making a 

false bomb threat and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected final 

order. Because the corrections are ministerial, a resentencing hearing and 

Hansen’s presence is not required. Obas v. State, 238 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2018) (defendant’s presence not required for correction of errors in 

written judgment); Mulligan v. State, 688 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) 

(defendant’s presence not required for entry of written reasons for 

imposing adult sanctions).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.