In a 25-page brief, the Attorney General’s Office responded to the appeal of Brendant Depa’s conviction for assaulting his teacher’s assistant at Matanzas High School in February 2023, which resulted in five years in prison and 15 years on probation. The defense contended that Circuit Judge Terence Perkins did not abuse his discretion in imposing an adult sentence in August 2024.
In August, Depa will turn 20. By the time he was sentenced, he had already completed 25 months of his sentence in local jails. He has since completed an additional 10 months of a 60-month sentence, but at 51 months (in a year and four months), he might be eligible for gain time, which is an early release from prison for good behavior. Then he would start his 15-year probation. In addition to shortening his incarceration, his defense team wants to relieve him of that lengthy responsibility.
The facts of the case as provided by the defense and described before Perkins during a two-day sentencing hearing are not contested in Assistant Attorney General Kaylee Tatman’s May 23 brief, which was filed at the Fifth District Court of Appeal. (Perkins is no longer active.) In order to make the case that the punishment is appropriate, the brief instead restates the more horrific details of the testimony given during the hearing, such as Depa’s violence during the assault and his subsequent disrespect. According to the testimony of two witnesses who spoke extensively throughout the hearing, it also reaffirms the prison system’s competence to manage his illnesses.
Overall, the brief does not deny the appeal; rather, it restates the sentencing hearing.
According to the state’s answer short, the Department of Corrections, which oversees the prison system, is able to treat mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities, and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. Dr. [Suzonne] Kline claimed that DOC could cure [Depa], who had been diagnosed with autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, ADHD, intermittent explosive disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, anxiety, and despair. To increase the inmate’s chances of a smooth transition, they begin programming six to eight months prior to the end of a sentence.
As she lay unconscious in a Matanzas High School hallway, staff members watched as Depa threw insults at her after the beating and pitied her before the assault. The brief also summarizes the testimony of Joann Naydich, the teacher aide, who described the serious injuries she sustained that changed her life. According to the brief, Depa externalized the responsibility by attributing it to the victim’s actions when questioned about the confrontation.
Despite the more graphic details of the incident and the increased focus on the prosecution’s expert witness, Gregory Pritchard, a licensed psychologist, who downplays the severity of Depa’s autism and describes him as intelligent, knowing, and aware of his actions, the brief continues, often, if not entirely, repeating the defense’s appeal brief.
Tatman argued that the court had complete discretion over the penalty, ranging from the minimum to the greatest amount that might be imposed. For aggravated battery against a school employee, Depa could have received a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. However, if the judge had sentenced him as a juvenile, he could have received a sentence of not more than probation, which would have ended when he turned 21. Another option would have been to sentence him as a juvenile offender, which would have reduced the length of his probation and jail term.
Tatman claimed that because of the violent and aggressive nature of the incident, the victim suffered from mental trauma, vestibular problems, rotator cuff issues, a herniated disc, five broken ribs (two of which were broken twice), a concussion, permanent hearing loss, and permanent vision loss. This was not a singular occurrence. According to the brief, Depa is too dangerous to be released from penalties when he becomes 21 because of his past history of aggressive behavior and two misdemeanor battery.
Depa had entered a guilty plea in an attempt to lessen the harshness of the punishment. Perkins had the authority to punish him as a juvenile offender because he had never been condemned as such before. He qualified, Perkins agreed. However, he claimed that because of the excessive violence of the attack, it was inappropriate. Since the attack happened outside of classrooms, it was captured on video surveillance cameras.
In addition to increasing public interest (and outrage), the footage was circulated to the media and swiftly traveled around the world. Depa’s size and race—he is Black, and his victim was white—also undoubtedly influenced the case’s course, beginning with the State Attorney’s choice to charge him as an adult. Court proceedings attracted sizable crowds and sustained media coverage.
There is widespread violence against educators and school personnel. A student shattered a staff member’s arm at Flagler Palm Coast High School several years ago, but the matter never made it to court. Similar incidents, including those in Flagler County, have made their way through the court system with less harsh penalties, typically due to a lack of video evidence and public scrutiny. Even though Depa occasionally harmed his case—he flipped off the gallery as he was being brought out of the courthouse following the sentencing session—his destiny may have been decided long before the sentencing hearing.
The brief argues that the trial court did not misuse its authority in imposing adult sanctions for [Depa’s] violent and aggressive attack on the victim, particularly when the court ordered [Depa] to continue receiving mental health services while on probation and while jailed. [Depa] has no right to relief.
But there had been little doubt that his routine outside of prison would have included mental health services that were probably more rigorous and dignified than those he would receive in prison. After he turned 21 and was freed from [the Department of Juvenile Justice], [Depa] could voluntarily decide to get treatment, but there would be no mandate that he did.
When probation expires, there won’t be either.
The appeal court has not set a date for oral arguments in the case and is free to decide on a schedule at any time.
Click On:
|
