Filed: Apr. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MARIA CONSUELO HIRALDO, ) DOC #H52613, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1678 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) _) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Keith P. Spoto, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Summary: NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MARIA CONSUELO HIRALDO, ) DOC #H52613, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1678 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) _) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Keith P. Spoto, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, T..
More
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
MARIA CONSUELO HIRALDO, )
DOC #H52613, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-1678
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
___________________________________)
Opinion filed April 24, 2019.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk
County; Keith P. Spoto, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and
Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender,
Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, Assistant
Attorney General, Tampa, and Allison C.
Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa
(substituted as counsel of record) for
Appellee.
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Maria Consuelo Hiraldo seeks review of the sentences the trial court
imposed after she entered an open plea to burglary of a dwelling and grand theft.
Hiraldo argues that the court erred in determining that she failed to establish a legal
basis to impose a downward departure sentence based on her need for specialized
treatment for a mental disorder. We agree and reverse.
Section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2016), provides for a departure
from the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code1 when "[t]he
defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to
substance abuse or addiction or for a physical disability, and the defendant is amenable
to treatment." Hiraldo claimed that she suffers from and requires specialized treatment
for bipolar disorder. The trial court indicated an inclination to impose a downward
departure sentence, but it ultimately concluded that Hiraldo did not meet the legal
criteria in section 921.0026(2)(d) and imposed the lowest permissible sentence. The
court accepted the State's argument that Hiraldo's bipolar disorder had a substance
abuse component and was therefore not "a mental disorder that is unrelated to
substance abuse or addiction." See
id.
We review this ruling for competent, substantial evidence. See Camacho
v. State,
164 So. 3d 45, 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Hiraldo presented testimony from her
licensed mental health counselor that she had previously been diagnosed as bipolar
and was treated for that disorder in addition to a substance abuse disorder. The
counselor said that Hiraldo had been prescribed medications for her bipolar disorder
and that he monitored the medications and worked to provide her coping skills for that
disorder. The counselor did not testify that Hiraldo had been prescribed any
medications for her substance abuse disorder.
1See ยงยง 921.002-.244.
-2-
The counselor believed Hiraldo had made substantial improvements with
her bipolar disorder in that she had been regulating her emotions much better. He also
said she made substantial improvements with her substance abuse disorder in that she
had been clean for a year. The counselor believed that sending Hiraldo to jail or prison
would make it more difficult to monitor her bipolar medication and to treat both her
bipolar disorder and drug addiction. He thought the treatment he was providing was
best for her.
We conclude that the trial court misconstrued the evidence when it
accepted the State's argument that Hiraldo's bipolar disorder had a substance abuse
component. Hiraldo's counselor made it clear that Hiraldo was being treated for two
disorders: bipolar disorder and substance abuse disorder. And Hiraldo's treatment for
the two disorders was different in that she was taking medication only for the bipolar
disorder. The goals of the treatments were also different: Hiraldo's improvements for
her bipolar disorder were measured by her ability to regulate her emotions, and her
improvements for her substance abuse disorder were measured by her ability to stay
clean.
Thus, the trial court's ruling was not supported by competent, substantial
evidence. See Daniels v. State,
884 So. 2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that
the trial court erred in finding it did not have a legal basis to depart based on the need
for specialized treatment when the evidence established that the defendant's mental
disorder required treatment separate from his substance abuse treatment).
Accordingly, we reverse Hiraldo's sentences and remand for the trial court to reconsider
-3-
Hiraldo's request for a downward departure.2 On remand, the parties should be
permitted to present additional evidence to establish Hiraldo's current status. See
id.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
2Weexpress no opinion as to whether Hiraldo's mental condition merits a
downward departure.
-4-