State v. BELLUSCIO

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. BELLUSCIO

82 So. 3d 910, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10186, 2011 WL 2555457

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 29, 2011·No. 4D10-1108·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s imposition of a downward departure sentence, because the defendant met his burden of proving the requirements for a downward departure sentence, pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2009), and presented unrebutted testimony that the defendant required specialized treatment for mental health disorders unrelated to substance abuse, which was not available at the Department of Corrections.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s imposition of a downward departure sentence, because the defendant met his burden of proving the requirements for a downward departure sentence, pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2009), and presented unrebutted testimony that the defendant required specialized treatment for mental health disorders unrelated to substance abuse, which was not available at the Department of Corrections.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

State v. BELLUSCIO, 82 So. 3d 910, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10186, 2011 WL 2555457 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 So. 3d 910 (State v. BELLUSCIO) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related