KEVIN MADDEN, 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.
Kevin Madden appealed an involuntary commitment order, arguing insufficient evidence, failure to consider less restrictive alternatives, and denial of closing argument rights. The court found merit only in the third argument and reversed the commitment order due to denial of due process through prohibition of summation and closing argument, remanding for closing argument proceedings.
The trial court erred in denying appellant's right to summation and closing argument, which constituted a denial of due process. The order of involuntary commitment was reversed and remanded for closing argument. The court found no merit in appellant's challenges to the sufficiency of evidence or the failure to consider less restrictive alternatives.
[1] A trial court's denial of a party's right to summation and closing argument constitutes a denial of due process rights.
[2] An appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not rendered moot by the patient's release if there are collateral legal consequences stemming from the commitment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This was a denial of appellant's due process rights.”
The court's conclusion that the trial court erred by prohibiting summation and closing argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMadden was subject to an involuntary commitment order by a trial court. During the commitment proceedings, the trial court did not permit Madden's cou…
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 Less Restrictive Alternatives cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
This case involves an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment. Appellant asserts three points on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the involuntary commitment order; (2) the trial court, contrary to sections 394.453(1) and 394.467(l)(b)(5), Florida Statutes (1983), failed to consider less restrictive alternatives; and (3) the trial court improperly did not allow summation and closing argument by appellant’s counsel.
Appellant’s third point has merit. The trial court erred by not permitting summation and closing argument. This was a denial of appellant’s due process rights. Chalk v. State, 443 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (decided after the order of involuntary commitment was entered in the instant case). We therefore reverse the order of involuntary commitment and remand for closing argument.
We do not remand for a new hearing as this court did in Chalk. In Chalk error was found to have occurred during testimony at the hearing. On the other hand, here we do not find merit in appellant’s first and second points on appeal. Our examination of the record in this case does not convince us that the attorneys and the trial court cannot, from a reading of the record, become once again fully cognizant of all portions of the hearing so as to make closing argument at least as meaningful as if it had been originally permitted. See Feiler v. State, 443 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
During the pendency of this appeal appellant was released and put on convalescent status. However, we do not believe that the appeal has become moot. It has been shown that the Federal Aviation Administration, as a collateral consequence of appellant’s involuntary commitment, re voked appellant’s medical certificate and suspended his pilot’s certificate. State v. Kinner, 398 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1981), supports the position that a patient’s release from involuntary commitment renders moot an appeal based upon asserted insufficiency of the evidence. See also West-lake v. State, 440 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). However, neither of those cases involved a showing, as here, that there had been a collateral legal consequence of the involuntary commitment. See In re Bal-lay, 482 F. 2d 648 (D.C.Cir.1973), cited in Westlake.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burley v. State, 59 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…Because involuntary commitment is a substantial deprivation of liberty at which fundamental due process protections must attach, the patient cannot be denied the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, and to be heard.”); Madden v. State, 463 So. 2d 270, 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding that trial court violated Madden’s due process rights in involuntary commitment proceeding by denying his counsel’s request to present closing argument); Feiler v. State, 443 So. 2d 1072, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (hol…
Authorities Cited
- In re Ballay, 482 F.2d 648 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- State v. Kinner, 398 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1981)
- Chalk v. State, 443 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Lenora Feiler v. State, 443 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Westlake v. State, 440 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)