Betancourt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Betancourt v. State

109 So. 3d 1236, 2013 WL 1234725, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5138, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 2013

DocketNo. 5D11-4202

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 3d 1236 (Betancourt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Betancourt v. State, 109 So. 3d 1236, 2013 WL 1234725, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5138, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 704 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Betancourt pled no contest to various crimes and received a downward departure sentence based on an alleged need for specialized medical treatment. The State appealed, and this Court reversed, concluding that Betancourt failed to prove with competent, substantial evidence, that the necessary medical treatment he required could not be provided by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”). See State v. Betancourt, 40 So.3d 53, 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). On remand, a new sentencing hearing was conducted and again, Betancourt asserted that he needed specialized medical treatment that was not available from the DOC. The trial court, properly concluding that it was bound by our earlier decision, found that Betancourt failed to demonstrate that DOC could not provide the necessary care and treatment.

While this appeal was pending, this Court receded from its numerous prior decisions and has now held that a defendant is not required to establish that the needed treatment is unavailable in DOC. See State v. Owens, 95 So.3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(en banc). Betancourt’s resen-tencing occurred before we decided Owens. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of our decision and originally indicated a desire to impose a downward departure sentence, we reverse Betancourt’s sentence and remand this matter for re-sentencing so that the court may consider our holding in Owens.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Betancourt pled no contest to various crimes and received a downward departure sentence based on an alleged need for specialized medical treatment. The State appealed, and this Court reversed, concluding that Betancourt failed to prove with competent, substantial evidence, that the necessary medical treatment he required could not be provided by the Department of Corrections (“DOC”). See State v. Betancourt, 40 So.3d 53, 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). On remand, a new sentencing hearing was conducted and again, Betancourt asserted that he needed specialized medical treatment that was not available from the DOC. The trial court, properly concluding that it was bound by our earlier decision, found that Betancourt failed to demonstrate that DOC could not provide the necessary care and treatment.

While this appeal was pending, this Court receded from its numerous prior decisions and has now held that a defendant is not required to establish that the needed treatment is unavailable in DOC. See State v. Owens, 95 So.3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(en banc). Betancourt’s resen-tencing occurred before we decided Owens. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of our decision and originally indicated a desire to impose a downward departure sentence, we reverse Betancourt’s sentence and remand this matter for re-sentencing so that the court may consider our holding in Owens.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 3d 1236, 2013 WL 1234725, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5138, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betancourt-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack