Matthew Dixon v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthew Dixon v. State of Florida

154 So. 3d 463

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 1, 2015

Docket1D12-3371

StatusPublished

This text of 154 So. 3d 463 (Matthew Dixon v. State of Florida) 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

Matthew Dixon v. State of Florida, 154 So. 3d 463 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*464 PER CURIAM.

Appellant Matthew Dixon appealed his sentence following his entry of an open no contest plea. We affirmed Appellant’s sentence in conformance with State v. Holmes, 909 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), which required Appellant to present evidence that the Department of Corrections could not accommodate his necessary, specialized treatment in order to receive a downward departure sentence under section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2013). See Dixon v. State, 128 So.3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), review dismissed, SC14-196, 2014 WL 1237108 (Fla.2014). The Florida Supreme Court has since disapproved of Holmes, 1 quashed this Court’s decision, and remanded the cause.

Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing in order to give the State an opportunity to present evidence as to whether DOC can provide the required specialized treatment and for the trial court to consider whether to render a downward departure sentence. See Chubbuck, 141 So.3d at 1168-69 (quoting Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1067-68 (Fla.1999)) (reaffirming that the process for departing from the guidelines requires the trial court to consider: (1) whether it legally can depart; and (2) if satisfied that it could, whether it should depart). We find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments, and so affirm in all other respects.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WETHERELL, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

1

. See State v. Chubbuck, 141 So.3d 1163 (Fla. 2014).

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

*464 PER CURIAM.

Appellant Matthew Dixon appealed his sentence following his entry of an open no contest plea. We affirmed Appellant’s sentence in conformance with State v. Holmes, 909 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), which required Appellant to present evidence that the Department of Corrections could not accommodate his necessary, specialized treatment in order to receive a downward departure sentence under section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2013). See Dixon v. State, 128 So.3d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), review dismissed, SC14-196, 2014 WL 1237108 (Fla.2014). The Florida Supreme Court has since disapproved of Holmes, 1 quashed this Court’s decision, and remanded the cause.

Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing in order to give the State an opportunity to present evidence as to whether DOC can provide the required specialized treatment and for the trial court to consider whether to render a downward departure sentence. See Chubbuck, 141 So.3d at 1168-69 (quoting Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1067-68 (Fla.1999)) (reaffirming that the process for departing from the guidelines requires the trial court to consider: (1) whether it legally can depart; and (2) if satisfied that it could, whether it should depart). We find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments, and so affirm in all other respects.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WETHERELL, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

1

. See State v. Chubbuck, 141 So.3d 1163 (Fla. 2014).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 3d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-dixon-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack