GUY R. MANNARELLI, 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 while the evidence supported the commitment, the order was facially defective for lacking specific factual findings.
[1] An order for involuntary commitment must contain specific factual findings supporting the conclusion that the respondent is eligible for commitment.
[2] A person may be involuntarily committed upon a finding that the person is mentally ill and, because of the illness, is manifestly dangerous to himself or herself or other…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity and subsequently committed to the Department of Children and Families. The commitment o…
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
STEVENSON, J.
This is an appeal from an order involuntarily committing appellant to the Department of Children and Families after the trial court found him not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Appellant challenges the commitment on the grounds that the order is facially defective and the record does not contain evidence of his present mental condition. We reject appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence but remand for the trial court to include specific factual findings supporting its conclusion that appellant is eligible for commitment.
After conducting an evidentiary hearing in which expert witnesses submitted oral testimony and written reports on the issue of whether appellant met the criteria for involuntary commitment pursuant to section 916.15(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the trial court entered an order stating simply that “the Defendant currently meets the criteria for commitment to the Department of Children and Families.” Section 916.15(1) provides that a person may be involuntarily committed upon a finding that “the person is mentally ill and, because of the person’s illness, is manifestly dangerous to himself or herself or others.” The order committing the defendant must contain “(1) findings of fact relating to the issue of commitment ...; (2) copies of any reports of experts filed with the court; and (3) any other psychiatric, psychological, or social work report submitted to the court relative to the mental state of the defendant.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.217(b).
The trial court correctly attached all of the appropriate reports and records to the order of commitment, and the record on appeal contains competent substantial evidence to support the finding that appellant meets the commitment criteria. However, the requirement that the trial court include findings of fact relating to the issue of commitment is mandatory. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to include specific findings of fact in the order relating to the issue of commitment.
Affirmed, but remanded with directions.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ill and is manifestly dangerous to himself or to others. Although the circuit court made a reasoned examination of these criteria in the hearing on this matter, the court’s order is deficient in failing to include findings. See Mannarelli v. State, 767 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The State has conceded that the order is facially insufficient. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to issue a new order including statutorily required findings.1 SILBERMAN, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Sen…
-
Abel Tavares v. State, 871 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…fact, and simply indicates that Mr. Tavares is mentally ill, and because of the illness, was a manifest danger to himself or others. The order is, therefore, deficient. See Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Mannarelli v. State, 767 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to include specific findings of fact in the commitment order. While there are other issues raised by Mr. Tavares, our review reflects no other error committed by the trial court. AFFI…
-
Mannarelli v. State, 770 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…er. This court later rejected his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence but remanded the cause to the trial court to include specific factual findings supporting its conclusion that Mannarelli was eligible for commitment. Mannarelli v. State, 767 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). On March 13, 2000, while his appeal was pending, the trial court entered an ex parte order of continuing commitment after it received reports from South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center that Mannarelli continued to meet…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence