Case Name: Albert SWEAT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-08-23
Citations: 454 So. 2d 749
Docket Number: No. AW-100
Parties: Albert SWEAT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 454
Pages: 749–751

Head Matter:
Albert SWEAT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. AW-100.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 23, 1984.
Michael Allen, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., John W. Tiede-mann, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
Sweat appeals his 18-month sentence, contending the trial court erred in exceeding the sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines set forth in Rules 3.701 and 3.988, Fla.R.Crim.P. (1983). We affirm.
On 22 August 1983, Sweat was charged with sexual battery of a four-year-old mongoloid child contrary to Section 794.011, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, he pled guilty to the lesser included offense of lewd and lascivious or indecent assault or act upon or in the presence of a child contrary to Section 800.04, Florida Statutes.
Sweat elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. At the sentencing hearing, it was developed that Sweat was reared by the victim's parents, that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident, and that the victim was not injured by the assault. The recommended sentence under the sentencing guidelines was any nonstate prison sanction. The trial judge departed from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Sweat to 18 months in the Department of Corrections, recommending that he be confined to a facility for the treatment of mentally disoriented sex offenders.
The Committee Note to Rule 3.701(d)(ll), in existence at the time of sentencing, suggests that sentences under the Mentally Disoriented Sex Offender Act (Chapter 917) "need not conform to the guidelines." The Supreme Court adopted the committee notes at the time it adopted the sentencing guidelines. See Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701, 3.988 — Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So.2d 824 (Fla.1984). We interpret this note to mean that once an offender is determined to be a candidate for mentally disoriented sex offender treatment, Rule 3.701 is not applicable.
A word of caution, however. On 8 May 1984, the Supreme Court approved changes in the sentencing guidelines and the committee note to Section 3.701(d)(ll) has been deleted. The Court stated that "The Committee Note to 3.701(d)(ll), which discusses statutory alternatives, has been completely eliminated. While these statutory alternatives are acknowledged, the sentencing court is required to explain the guideline departure when an alternative program is used."
The sentence imposed in this ease is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
SHIVERS, J., dissents with opinion.