Manuel Betancourt v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MANUEL BETANCOURT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D11-4202 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 28, 2013 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Manuel Betancourt pled no contest to various crimes and received a downward departure sentence based on an alleged need for specialized medical treatment. The State appealed, and this Court reversed, concluding that Betancourt failed to prove with competent, substantial evidence, that the necessary medical treatment he required could not be provided by the Department of Corrections ( DOC ). See State v. Betancourt, 40 So. 3d 53, 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). On remand, a new sentencing hearing was conducted and again, Betancourt asserted that he needed specialized medical treatment that was not available from the DOC. The trial court, properly concluding that it was bound by our earlier decision, found that Betancourt failed to demonstrate that DOC could not provide the necessary care and treatment. While this appeal was pending, this Court receded from its numerous prior decisions and has now held that a defendant is not required to establish that the needed treatment is unavailable in DOC. See State v. Owens, 95 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(en banc). Betancourt s resentencing occurred before we decided Owens. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of our decision and originally indicated a desire to impose a downward departure sentence, we reverse Betancourt s sentence and remand this matter for resentencing so that the court may consider our holding in Owens. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER AND BERGER, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
