What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings and held that no law requires a judge to give a written explanation when denying a motion to reduce a sentence.

Who is affected by this decision?

The immediate parties are the appellant, Timothy Ferguson, and the State of Florida; the ruling also reiterates precedent that affects future defendants seeking written explanations for denied downward departure motions in the Fourth District.

What happens next in the case?

The decision is not final until the time for a timely motion for rehearing expires or any such motion is resolved; absent rehearing the affirmance stands.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A party may seek rehearing in the district court or file a petition for discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court, subject to the court's jurisdiction and applicable deadlines.

Timothy Joseph Ferguson v. State of Florida

Docket 4D2025-1723

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 22, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 4D2025-1723

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (St. Lucie County) challenging denial of relief in three criminal cases.

Summary

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant Timothy Joseph Ferguson's challenge in three criminal cases. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion, relying on precedent to hold that the defendant was not entitled to an express written explanation for the denial of a motion to downward departure from sentencing. The court cited Venter v. State to support its view that due process does not require a specific explanation for such denials and therefore found no reversible error.

Issues Decided

Whether due process requires the trial court to provide an express explanation when denying a motion to downward depart from the sentencing guidelines.
Whether the trial court's denial of the downward departure motions in the listed cases was reversible error.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on controlling precedent (Venter v. State) establishing that due process does not include a right to an express explanation when a motion to downward depart is denied. Applying that rule, the panel concluded there was no legal basis to overturn the trial court's denials and thus no reversible error. The short per curiam opinion treated the precedent as dispositive and affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Authorities Cited

Venter v. State901 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)

Parties

Appellant: Timothy Joseph Ferguson
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: Michael Carlton Heisey
Attorney: Jonathan Jay Kirschner
Attorney: Zi Jin Peter Chan

Key Dates

Opinion Date: 2026-04-22

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If the appellant believes there are grounds, they should timely file a motion for rehearing in the Fourth District to seek reconsideration before the mandate issues.
2
Evaluate petition to the Florida Supreme Court
If rehearing is denied or not sought, counsel should consider whether to pursue discretionary review in the Florida Supreme Court within the applicable deadline.
3
Prepare to implement sentencing outcome
If all appellate remedies are exhausted or not pursued, the parties should prepare to proceed under the affirmed sentences and comply with the circuit court's orders.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings and held that no law requires a judge to give a written explanation when denying a motion to reduce a sentence.
Who is affected by this decision?: The immediate parties are the appellant, Timothy Ferguson, and the State of Florida; the ruling also reiterates precedent that affects future defendants seeking written explanations for denied downward departure motions in the Fourth District.
What happens next in the case?: The decision is not final until the time for a timely motion for rehearing expires or any such motion is resolved; absent rehearing the affirmance stands.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A party may seek rehearing in the district court or file a petition for discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court, subject to the court's jurisdiction and applicable deadlines.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                                FOURTH DISTRICT

                     TIMOTHY JOSEPH FERGUSON,
                             Appellant,

                                       v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                             No. 4D2025-1723

                                [April 22, 2026]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; Michael Carlton Heisey, Judge; L.T. Case Nos.
562014CF001172A; 562014CF001814A; 562024CF002199A.

  Jonathan Jay Kirschner of Jonathan Jay Kirschner, Esq., & Associates,
LLC, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

  James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zi Jin Peter
Chan, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

    Affirmed. See, inter alia, Venter v. State, 901 So. 2d 898, 898 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2005) (“We know of no principle or case, nor has one been cited to
us, which holds that due process includes the right of an express
explanation on why a motion to downward depart was denied. We decline
to recognize such a right.”).

KLINGENSMITH, SHAW and LOTT, JJ., concur.

                            *          *           *

   Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.