The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
coordinated strategy should be modeled after the therapeutic jurisprudence principles and key components in s. 397.334(4), with treatment specific to the needs of veterans and servicemembers. The coordinated strategy may include a protocol of sanctions that may be imposed upon the participant for noncompliance with program rules. The protocol of sanctions may include, but need not be limited to, placement in a treatment program offered by a licensed service provider or in a jail-based treatment program or serving a period of incarceration within the time limits established for contempt of court. The coordinated strategy must be provided in writing to the participant before the participant agrees to enter into a misdemeanor pretrial veterans' treatment intervention program or other pretrial intervention program. Any person whose charges are dismissed after successful completion of the misdemeanor pretrial veterans' treatment intervention program, if otherwise eligible, may have his or her arrest record of the dismissed charges expunged under s. 943.0585.In this case, we must determine whether Gaither was afforded an appropriate level of due process protection at the drug court hearing before he was terminated from the program and sentenced to prison. The parties have not directed us to, and our independent research has not located any Florida case that specifically addresses the due process that defendants participating in a drug court program pursuant to a plea agreement are entitled to prior to termination from drug court. Gaither urges us to adopt the same due process requirements afforded defendants in probation revocation proceedings. A trial court may order a defendant to complete a drug court program as a special condition of ordinary probation, as a condition of drug offender probation under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2019), or as a part of a treatment-based drug court program under section 397.334, Florida Statutes (2019). See Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222, 231 (Fla. 2007). If an individual is participating in drug court as a condition of probation, he or she is entitled to notice of an alleged violation and a hearing before being terminated. § 397.334( 3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing that… Appellant, who was diagnosed with a substance abuse problem and had no prior criminal convictions, was charged with three counts: trafficking in a controlled substance; possession of a controlled substance; and possession of paraphernalia. He moved to transfer his case to a pre-trial treatment-based program, but the trial judge denied relief. A trial court's decision to grant entry into a pretrial treatment-based program is discretionary. See § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2019) (A "court may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program ....") (emphasis added). Appellant makes two arguments, first that he was eligible for the pre-trial treatment-based program notwithstanding a local administrative order to the contrary, and second that the trial judge erred in denying his motion.Although not addressed by the parties and not dispositive of this case, we note that section 397.334(2), Florida Statutes (2014), provides in relevant part that "[e]ntry into any pretrial treatment-based drug court program shall be voluntary." And the website for the Drug Pretrial Intervention Program for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit indicates that "[a]ny person over the age of 18 who has not had a prior felony or pretrial intervention episode is eligible provided they waive their right to a speedy trial, admit to having a drug problem and express a desire for treatment." Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Hillsborough County Drug Pretrial Intervention Program FAQs, http://www.fljud13.org/CourtPrograms/DrugCourtPrograms/DrugPretrialIntervention/FAQs.aspx (last visited May 18, 2017).The State argues that even if Orr's offense does not qualify for drug offender probation, the trial court was authorized to impose drug offender probation because it is an alternative to the sentencing guidelines. See Jones v. State, 813 So.2d 22, 24–25 (Fla. 2002) (holding that drug offender probation "provides an alternative sentencing scheme for drug abusers that is outside of the sentencing guidelines" and that the laws prohibiting downward departure sentences based on substance abuse or addiction do not apply when the trial court chooses to impose drug offender probation for a qualifying offense). The State contends that the language of section 948.20(1) applies only when the trial court imposes drug offender probation in lieu of a sentence, not when the trial court imposes such probation in addition to a jail or prison sentence. This argument is not supported by Jones or the language in section 948.20, which authorizes the trial court to impose drug offender probation only under certain circumstances for qualifying offenses. As noted above, drug offender probation was not an option for the offense of resisting an officer with violence. See Lawson v. State, 969 So.2d 222… A person who violates paragraph (2)(f) [soliciting prostitution] shall be assessed a civil penalty of $5,000 if the violation results in any judicial disposition other than acquittal or dismissal. Of the proceeds from each penalty assessed under this subsection, the first $500 shall be paid to the circuit court administrator for the sole purpose of paying the administrative costs of treatment-based drug court programs provided under s. 397.334. The remainder of the penalty assessed shall be deposited in the Operations and Maintenance Trust Fund of the Department of Children and Families for the sole purpose of funding safe houses and safe foster homes as provided in s. 409.1678.to a drug court program. § 397.334(10)(a), Fla. Stat.Petitioner acknowledges that the court had discretion in deciding whether to permit him to enter into the drug court program. The statute provides that a court “ may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program.” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis supplied). The State does not dispute that petitioner qualifies for participation in the drug court program. See§ 948.08(6), Fla. Stat. (2012). Section 948.08(6)(a) 2 provides:J.W., the father of a dependent child, appeals from an order requiring him to participate in a drug court program as a case plan requirement. Appellant highlights that section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which authorizes counties to fund drug court programs for criminal defendants provides that "[e]ntry into ... [the] program shall be voluntary." § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). It also specifies that a "court may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program only upon written agreement by the individual...." Id. Appellant reasons that since this statute provides only for voluntary drug court programs, the trial judge should have been required to select an alternative drug treatment program when he objected to drug court as a case plan requirement. This argument ignores the applicable provision of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, which expressly authorizes the court in a dependency case, upon a showing of "good cause [,]" to:(6)(a) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, a person who is charged with a felony of the second or third degree for purchase or possession of a controlled substance under chapter 893, prostitution, tampering with evidence, solicitation for purchase of a controlled substance, or obtaining a prescription by fraud; who has not been charged with a crime involving violence, including, but not limited to, murder, sexual battery, robbery, carjacking, home-invasion robbery, or any other crime involving violence; and who has not previously been convicted of a felony nor been admitted to a felony pretrial program referred to in this section is eligible for voluntary admission into a pretrial substance abuse education and treatment intervention program, including a treatment-based drug court program established pursuant to s. 397.334, approved by the chief judge of the circuit, for a period of not less than 1 year in duration, upon motion of either party or the court's own motion, except:. . . Although not addressed by the parties and not dispositive of this case, we note that section 397.334( . . .
. . . 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005); or (3) as part of a ’treatment based drug court program’ under section 397.334 . . .
. . . purpose of paying the administrative costs of treatment-based drug court programs provided under s. 397.334 . . .
. . . (creating § 397.334(10)(a), Fla. Stat., effective June 20, 2014). . . . treatment status reports for defendants referred to or considered for referral to a drug court program. § 397.334 . . .
. . . .” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis supplied). . . .
. . . Appellant highlights that section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which authorizes counties to fund drug court . . . [the] program shall be voluntary.” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . available, participation in and compliance with a treatment-based drug court program established under s. 397.334 . . .
. . . treatment intervention program, including a treatment-based drug court program established pursuant to s. 397.334 . . .
. . . treatment intervention program, including a treatment-based drug court program established pursuant to s. 397.334 . . .
. . . and 948.20, Florida Statutes, or as part of a treatment based drug court program pursuant to section 397.334 . . .
. . . Stat. (2009); see also § 397.334, Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . The current order tracks the language of section 397.334(3)(a) and now provides: “Entry into the felony . . . subsection, the participant is subject to a coordinated strategy developed by a drug court team under s. 397.334 . . . Stat. (2009) (emphasis added) ; see also § 397.334(5), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .
. . . 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005); or (3) as part of a ‘treatment based drug court program’ under section 397.334 . . .
. . . The court stated that section 397.334(2) would allow any person who has a substance abuse problem to . . . Unlike section 948.08(6), section 397.334 does not provide for the dismissal of criminal charges upon . . . It includes by direct reference treatment-based drug court programs established pursuant to section 397.334 . . . Under the trial court’s interpretation of sections 397.334 and 948.08(6)(a), the trial court would have . . . If section 948.08(6)(a) must be harmonized with section 397.334, section 397.334 is the general statute . . .
. . . 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005); or (3) as part of a “treatment based drug court program” under section 397.334 . . . Additionally, the Legislature authorized the creation of “treatment-based drug court programs.” § 397.334 . . . substance abuse problem through treatment plans tailored to the individual needs of the participant.” § 397.334 . . . Legislature mandated that the drug court programs comport with “therapeutic jurisprudence principles,” § 397.334 . . . including the importance of “[o]ngoing judicial interaction with each drug court program participant.” § 397.334 . . .
. . . formally recognizing the Ten Key Components of drug courts recently codified by the Legislature, see § 397.334 . . .
. . . In 2001, the legislature enacted section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which adopted the Ten Key Components . . .
. . . with the Florida Legislature’s concept of how to deal with substance abusers, as embodied in section 397.334 . . .
. . . See §§ 397.334, 948.08(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . See §§ 397.12, 397.334(c)-(d), 948.08, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . .