FLOYD STEVE HUSK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 held that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the appellant requires further involuntary hospitalization.
The appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity for sexual battery and attempted first-degree murder. After being committed and later reporte…
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 Dangerousness To Self Or Others cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Husk appeals the trial court’s order finding him in need of further involuntary hospitalization pursuant to Section 394.-467(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). We affirm.
Husk was charged with the offenses of sexual battery and attempted first degree murder but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Following that verdict, the trial court committed Husk to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) pursuant to Rule 3.217, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Some months thereafter, HRS reported to Duval County Circuit Court that Husk no longer met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization, and he was then returned to Duval County for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.218, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Husk was still in need of involuntary hospitalization and remanded him to the custody of HRS until further order of the court.
Husk contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s findings. We disagree.
The evidence clearly shows that Husk is still mentally ill and, because of his illness, is manifestly dangerous to himself or others. Section 916.15(1), Florida Statutes (1981).
He further contends that the trial court erred in appointing Doctors Sail and Larson to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of him. However, this objection was not raised below, and he therefore may not raise it now. Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982).
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Husk v. State, 453 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…was still mentally ill and, because of his illness, was manifestly dangerous to himself and others. The court further found that any objection to the appointment of Doctors Sail and Larsen had not been preserved for appellate review. Husk v. State, 438 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). During the pendency of that appeal, HRS filed another report with the trial court, stating again that Husk no longer met the criteria for involuntary commitment. On 26 May 1983, the trial court ordered Husk returned again to Du…
-
Yusef Furqan v. State, 91 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…peal an order continuing involuntary commitment and reversing and remanding for further proceedings on the practicability of conditional release where insanity acquittee no longer met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization), and Husk v. State, 438 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reviewing as direct appeal and affirming an order finding that insanity acquittee needed further involuntary hospitalization despite Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ report that acquittee no longer met the crite…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1982)