State v. Berry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Berry

19 So. 3d 429, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14105, 2009 WL 3012676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 2009

Docket3D09-448

StatusPublished

This text of 19 So. 3d 429 (State v. Berry) 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

State v. Berry, 19 So. 3d 429, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14105, 2009 WL 3012676 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida (“the State”) appeals Laffayette Berry’s (“the defendant”) downward departure sentence. We reverse.

Based on a review of the record, we find that there was no competent substantial evidence presented to support the downward departure sentence. See State v. Grayson, 916 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that a trial court is required to find that, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the defendant had a mental disorder that required specialized treatment; had a reasonable possibility of successful treatment; and required treat *430 ment that the Department of Corrections could not provide). Here, the trial court did not find that the Department of Corrections could not provide the treatment the defendant required.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida (“the State”) appeals Laffayette Berry’s (“the defendant”) downward departure sentence. We reverse.

Based on a review of the record, we find that there was no competent substantial evidence presented to support the downward departure sentence. See State v. Grayson, 916 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that a trial court is required to find that, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the defendant had a mental disorder that required specialized treatment; had a reasonable possibility of successful treatment; and required treat *430 ment that the Department of Corrections could not provide). Here, the trial court did not find that the Department of Corrections could not provide the treatment the defendant required.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 So. 3d 429, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14105, 2009 WL 3012676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-berry-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack