Court Opinion

ID: 9903945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:11:28.368931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.707664
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                   NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                   FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                   DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STATE OF FLORIDA,

             Appellant,

v.                                         Case No.    5D21-2422
                                           LT Case No. 2020-CF-000402-A

MARCUS ANTHONY SAWYER,

             Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Citrus County,
Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellant.

J. Michael Blackstone, of J. Michael
Blackstone, P.A., Crystal River, for
Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

      The State appeals the downward departure sentence imposed after

Appellee entered a nolo contendere plea to trafficking in cocaine, possession
of cannabis with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver, and possession of

paraphernalia. We reverse because competent, substantial evidence does

not support the trial court's decision to impose the downward departure

sentence.

      Immediately before trial was to begin in this case, defense counsel

informed the court that Appellee was in "complete renal failure," which

necessitated his receiving dialysis three times per week. At that time,

defense counsel provided the court with a letter from Appellee's dialysis

provider and various medical records purporting to confirm Appellee's

medical condition. Notably, the medical documentation was neither signed

by    Appellee’s    treating   physicians     nor    provided     via   sworn

testimony. Thereafter, over the State's objection, the trial court offered five

years of probation in exchange for a guilty plea, citing to Appellee's renal

failure as justification. Appellee accepted the plea offer and the trial court

adjudicated Appellee guilty, imposing a downward departure sentence of five

years of drug offender probation instead of the lowest permissible sentence

of 90.71 months in prison with a three-year minimum mandatory penalty for

the drug trafficking charge.

      A trial court may impose a downward departure from the lowest

possible sentence only if there are circumstances or factors to support the

                                      2
departure; a trial court may not impose a downward departure in the absence

of such circumstances or factors. §§ 921.0024(2), 921.0026(1), Fla. Stat.

(2021). The onus is on the defendant to establish that a valid reason for a

departure exists. See, e.g., State v. Kahl, 333 So. 3d 809, 811–12 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2022).

      Determining whether a downward departure sentence was properly

imposed presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Diaz, 290 So.

3d 611, 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).          In considering whether to uphold a

departure sentence, we must apply a two-pronged analysis. Banks v. State,

732 So. 2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 1999). First, we must determine whether the

trial court applied the correct rule of law and whether such application is

supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. Second, if the downward

departure is supported by competent, substantial evidence, we must "decide

whether the trial court [abused its discretion] in determining that the

downward departure sentence was the best sentencing option for the

defendant." State v. Johnson, 224 So. 3d 877, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)

(alteration in original). This is a determination which requires us to consider

the totality of the circumstances. Id.

      In this case, competent, substantial evidence does not support the trial

court's finding regarding Appellant's medical condition. In order to establish

                                         3
that a downward departure sentence was warranted pursuant to section

921.0026(2)(d), Appellee was required to prove the following three elements:

(1) that he has a physical disability which (2) requires specialized treatment,

and (3) that he is amenable to that treatment. 1 See State v. Chubbuck, 141

So. 3d 1163, 1171 (Fla. 2014).

      Amenability has been defined as "a reasonable possibility that . . .

treatment will be successful." Id. at 1171 n.22 (quoting Herrin v. State, 568

So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1990)). Chapter 921, Florida Statutes, does not define

"specialized treatment," but testimony from a medical professional is

sufficient to establish this element. Id. at 1169; see, e.g., Williams v. State,

286 So. 3d 892, 896–98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that an experienced

psychologist's testimony, if found to be credible, is competent, substantial

evidence).

      1
        We recognize that the trial judge issued a written memorandum
explaining that the departure was based on non-statutory mitigating factors
in accordance with section 921.0026(1), which states that mitigating factors
include, but are not limited to, the statutory factors listed in section
921.0026(2). However, a court cannot rely on a non-statutory factor when
that factor is encompassed within a listed statutory factor. See State v.
Kunkemoeller, 333 So. 3d 335, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) ("The legislature's
requirements would be left hollow if a sentencing court could cherry-pick one
part of a statutory mitigator and re-define it as non-statutory. A statutory
ground's requirements cannot be avoided simply by renaming the basis a
non-statutory ground.").

                                       4
      Here, no competent, substantial evidence as to either amenability or

specialized treatment supports the trial court's decision to enter a downward

departure sentence. The evidence presented to the trial judge was limited to:

(1) the letter from the dialysis provider, (2) a collection of medical reports

confirming Appellee's diagnosis, and (3) Appellee's testimony subsequent to

the trial court's decision to impose the downward departure sentence. The

trial court also considered defense counsel's representations regarding

Appellee's medical condition.

      This evidence is insufficient to support the downward departure

sentence for several reasons. First, the letter from the dialysis provider was

unsworn, and was signed by a social worker rather than Appellee's doctor.

Second, while these documents do seem to establish that Appellee suffers

from chronic renal failure, among a host of other illnesses, they do not

address the specialized nature of dialysis as a treatment, or whether

Appellee is amenable to such treatment. Third, a defendant's testimony as

to his medical condition, on its own, has been found to be insufficient to

support a downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(d). See State v.

McElroy, 145 So. 3d 866, 869–70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Finally, an attorney's

representations are insufficient to support a downward departure. See State

v. Teal, 831 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

                                      5
     Therefore, because there was no evidence as to either specialized

treatment or amenability as required by section 921.0026(2)(d) to support a

downward departure, we reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing. 2

During the new sentencing hearing, Appellee should be given an opportunity

to withdraw his plea if he wishes to do so. See State v. Sahadeo, 890 So. 2d

464, 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("A defendant is entitled to withdraw a plea if,

following a plea agreement, the trial court is not able to adhere to the

provisions of the plea agreement.").

     REVERSED and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

     2
        In addition to reversing for the reasons explained, when there is a
mandatory minimum sentencing requirement, a trial judge cannot impose a
downward departure sentence below the mandatory minimum. See State v.
Vanderhoff, 14 So. 3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding trial court
erred in imposing a downward departure sentence below the minimum
mandatory required by statute).

                                       6