WILLIE JOHNSON, 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.
Willie Johnson appealed a trial court's decision denying his petition for full release from involuntary hospitalization at Florida State Hospital. The appellate court affirmed the limited release to the civil unit but reversed the denial of conditional release, finding the trial court improperly refused to require development of an adequate conditional release plan.
The trial court's decision to transfer Johnson to the civil unit for limited release was affirmed as not manifestly erroneous and consistent with physician recommendations. However, the denial of conditional release was reversed as manifestly erroneous because the trial court failed to require development of an adequate conditional release plan and improperly relied solely on experts' inability to guarantee compliance with treatment.
[1] A trial court's decision to transfer a patient to a civil unit from involuntary hospitalization is affirmed if it is not manifestly erroneous.
[2] A trial court's denial of a conditional release from involuntary hospitalization is manifestly erroneous if it fails to require the Department of Health and Rehabilitativ…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court should have required HRS and its hospital administrators to "share with the patient the responsibility" of producing a practical and conceivable conditional release plan providing adequate outpatient supervision, pursuant to § 916.17, Florida Statutes (1987)”
Establishes the mandatory duty of the trial court to require development of a conditional release plan before denying release
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was involuntarily hospitalized and petitioned for release. The trial court found he was not ready for full release but met criteria for limite…
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 Manifestly Erroneous Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
In this appeal from a denial of a petition for release from involuntary hospitalization, appellant challenges the trial court’s finding that he was not yet ready for full release, but met the criteria for a limited release to the civil unit at Florida State Hospital. The trial court’s decision to transfer appellant to the civil unit is affirmed because it is not “manifestly erroneous”. Hill v. State, 358 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). By ordering limited release to the civil unit the trial court acted within the recommendations of the treating physicians and the suggestion of appellant’s counsel.
The trial court’s decision to deny appellant’s alternative request for a conditional release, however, was “manifestly erroneous.” It appears the trial court denied release solely because the experts could not guarantee that appellant would abstain from alcohol and take his medication if released. In such an instance our decision in Boclair v. State, 524 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) is dispositive in that the trial court should have required HRS and its hospital administrators to “share with the patient the responsibility” of pro ducing a practical and conceivable conditional release plan providing adequate outpatient supervision, pursuant to § 916.17, Florida Statutes (1987). Only then can it determine whether appellant meets the statutory criteria for continued involuntary hospitalization. Without such a determination an order continuing appellant’s involuntary hospitalization was improper. Id. at 470-471; Hill, 358 So. 2d at 211.
In the instant case, the trial court neither considered nor requested evidence of an adequate release plan. However, by reason of the ongoing review of appellant by HRS it would be meaningless for the trial court to make this determination as of the November 1987 petition for release. Appellant’s release to the civil unit is AFFIRMED; however, the denial of appellant’s request for a conditional release is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and based upon circumstances attending appellant’s hospitalization at the time of the hearing required by this opinion.
JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Titus Onesimus Dodd v. State of Fla. & Louis A. Quinones, JR., 304 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…othing prevents the trial court from ordering a new evaluation to determine whether Petitioner now meets the criteria for involuntary commitment; however, Petitioner may not be held in jail solely to complete that determination.”); Johnson v. State, 536 So. 2d 1054, 1054–55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (explaining trial court need to consider evidence of adequate release plan). We understand the trial court has very limited options available to it in this case. Nonetheless, we grant the petition and direct the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 358 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Boclair v. State, 524 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)