STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ADREA VERNIQUE WILEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's downward departure sentence imposed under Florida's mental health statute. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a defendant with a mental disorder requiring specialized treatment was amenable to such treatment, justifying departure from the mandatory minimum guideline sentence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the downward departure sentence. While the State conceded that the defendant met the requirements of Step One (valid legal ground and adequate factual support), the court's determination in Step Two (whether departure is the best sentencing option) was a judgment call within the trial court's sound discretion that this court cannot overturn absent abuse.
[1] A trial court's decision to impose a downward departure sentence involves a two-step process: first, determining if a valid legal ground and factual support exist for dep…
[2] A downward departure sentence is permissible when the defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder unrelated to substance abuse and is amenable to such…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction ... and the defendant is amenable to treatment.”
Sets forth the statutory basis for downward departure under section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdrea Vernique Wiley pleaded no contest to multiple offenses arising from a road rage incident that began with an exchange of words in a Whataburger d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Aggravating And Mitigating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
Appellee pled no contest to multiple offenses arising out of a “road rage” incident that started when she and the victim exchanged words in a Whataburger drive-thru line. Appellee’s scoresheet reflected a lowest permissible sentence of 58 months in prison, but after a hearing at which Appellee and her psychologist testified, the trial court imposed a downward departure sentence of 11 months and 30 days in jail, followed by 10 years of probation. The court relied on section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2018), which authorizes a downward departure when the court finds that “[t]he defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction ... and the defendant is amenable to treatment.”
The State appealed Appellee’s downward departure sentence. We affirmed on preservation grounds, see State v. Wiley, 179 So.3d 481, 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), but the Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision, see State v. Wiley, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S149, 210 So.3d 658, 2017 WL 526510 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017). On remand, we reexamined the record and the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs. We now affirm on the merits.
A trial court’s decision whether to impose a downward departure sentence is a two-step process. In step 1, the court must determine “whether it can depart, i.e., whether there is a valid legal ground and adequate factual support for that ground in the case pending before it.” Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 1999) (emphasis in original). In step 2, the court must determine “whether it should depart, i.e., whether departure is indeed the best sentencing option for the defendant in the pending case.” Id. at 1068 (emphasis in original). In making the determination in step 2, the court must “weigh the totality of the circumstances in the case, including aggravating and mitigating factors.” Id.
In its initial brief, the State concedes that “Appellee met the requirements of Step One,” and it only challenges the trial court’s ruling on step 2. This ruling was a “judgment call within the sound discretion of the trial court,” id. and based on our review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a downward departure sentence under the circumstances of this case. Id. (explaining that “[discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would agree with the trial court’s decision.”); see also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“Discretion ... is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court.”) (quoting Delno v. Market Street Railway Co., 124 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir.1942)). Accordingly, we affirm Appel-lee’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Donald B. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)
- Delno v. Mkt. ST. RY. Co., 124 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1942)
- State v. Adrea Vernique Wiley, 210 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2017)
- State v. Adrea Vernique Wiley, 179 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)