MERVYN HAROLD CROSS, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE GEORGE N. DIAMANTIS, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to prevent a sentencing hearing, holding that the trial court has authority to address claims of fraud in the HRS treatment discontinuation notice at the scheduled hearing rather than through prohibition.
A petition for writ of prohibition is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge a trial court's sentencing hearing when the trial court has authority to address fraud claims regarding HRS treatment discontinuation at that hearing.
“If he finds that the notice dated July 14, 1980, from HRS was induced or procured by fraud, he has the authority to re-commit Cross to HRS for completion of his treatment.”
Court explaining the trial judge's authority to address fraud claims at the sentencing hearing.
Cross was committed to HRS in 1975 as a mentally disordered sex offender. HRS notified the trial court on July 14, 1980, that it had exhausted all app…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The petitioner Cross seeks to prohibit the trial court from conducting a sentencing hearing scheduled pursuant to a notice to the trial court from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) that the Department “has exhausted all appropriate treatment” for Cross, previously committed to it in 1975 as a mentally disordered sex offender. See Cross v. State, 378 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The crux of the petition is that Cross is entitled to further treatment by HRS and that the staff decision to discontinue treatment was the result of threats and intimidation by the Unit Director of the treatment center. The matters raised by the petition can be evidenced to the trial judge at the sentencing hearing. If he finds that the notice dated July 14, 1980, from HRS was induced or procured by fraud, he has the authority to re-commit Cross to HRS for completion of his treatment. See § 917.011, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Indeed, the trial court has already taken evidence in this regard on September 11,1980, and continued the matter for further hearing on September 26, 1980. This is not a matter to be determined initially by this Court through the vehicle of prohibition. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977). The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Mervyn Harold Cross v. State, 378 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)