EMILIO MACEO QUIALA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The State correctly concedes that the trial court improperly ordered appellant, Emilio Maceo Quiala, recommitted to hospitalization in a secure forensic unit, when HRS had recommended appellant’s transfer to a less restrictive civil facility. Where a defendant has met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization and has been committed to the custody of HRS, HRS has exclusive authority to determine the appropriate facility placement over this client. § 916.105(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Pelz, 609 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Because the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by making a placement decision under the involuntary commitment statute, we reverse the trial court’s re-commitment order. Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. M.H. & State of Fla., 830 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…Servs. v. Bills, 661 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (finding that contempt sanction is impermissible when it stood unrebutted that the department did not have the ability to transport the criminal defendant to any treatment facility); Quiala v. State, 659 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Pelz, 609 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The same principles apply when circuit courts attempt to exercise' authority over placement [*851] by the Department of Corrections of sentenced…
-
Dyson v. State, 934 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…based on defendant’s commission of attempted first degree murder occurring in the same shooting spree, consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, a mandatory life in prison sentence for the first degree murder of another victim. Cheatham v. State, 659 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), is exactly on point and mandates this result. See Downs v. State, 616 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1993); see also Roberts v. State, 923 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); cf. State v. Ferreira, 840 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Affirmed.…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Davis, 923 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…argues that under the applicable statute, the court may commit a defendant to the Department, but cannot designate the specific facility in which the Department determines to place the defendant. See § 916.13(2), Fla. Stat. (2005); Quiala v. State, 659 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The defendant concedes that this is so. We see no problem with paragraph six because it is merely a nonbinding recommendation that the defendant be placed at SFETC. We quash paragraph seven, which in effect bars the Department f…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Pelz, 609 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)