After Mr. Dickie's Anders counsel filed a brief explaining that she could find no issues of arguable merit, we struck the Anders brief and ordered merits briefing. We affirm his judgment and sentences without comment and write only to address whether the trial court's consideration of unsworn victim impact statements during Mr. Dickie's sentencing was improper pursuant to section 921.143(1)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2015), and Patterson v. State , 994 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Having considered the merits briefs submitted by both Mr. Dickie and the State, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering the unsworn victim impact statements when fashioning Mr. Dickie's sentences.
We will address that conflict in detail. The First District, in Patterson v. State , 994 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), held that a court's acceptance of a victim's unsworn statement is error. There, the defendant appealed an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief.
In Baugh's second issue, he contends the trial court fundamentally erred by relying on the victim's unsworn statement in fashioning his sentence. He points to this Court's decision in Patterson v. State , which held that section 921.143, Florida Statutes (2016), bars the admission of an unsworn victim impact statement in a sentencing hearing. 994 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). But seeDickie v. State , 216 So.3d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (certifying conflict with Patterson ).