CHARLES DURDEN, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT BRIODY, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER; AND KATHLEEN A. KEARNEY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, RESPONDENTS
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.
Charles Durden, a sexually violent predator civilly committed under the Jimmy Ryce Act, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and mandamus, claiming he was not being properly segregated from non-committed patients as required by statute. The appellate court denied both petitions, holding that habeas corpus is limited to challenging the legality of detention itself rather than conditions of confinement, and that mandamus would require an evidentiary hearing better suited to circuit court.
Habeas corpus relief is not available because Durden has not alleged facts showing he is unlawfully imprisoned or entitled to release—the traditional remedy of habeas corpus—only that the conditions of his confinement violate statutory requirements. Mandamus is appropriately denied without prejudice because determining whether segregation is actually occurring requires an evidentiary hearing better conducted by the circuit court.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus is designed to test solely the legality of a prisoner's imprisonment and may be employed to secure the release of a person who is being unlawfully…
[2] A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must allege facts that would entitle them to release from custody, not merely challenge the conditions of confinement.
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 intelligence“The great writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right obtainable under our Constitution by all men who claim to be unlawfully imprisoned against their will. It is designed to test solely the legality of the prisoner's imprisonment.”
Establishes the fundamental purpose and scope of habeas corpus as limited to testing legality of imprisonment itself, not conditions of confinement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDurden was found to be a sexual predator and committed for treatment at the Florida Civil Commitment Center under the Jimmy Ryce Act pursuant to a cir…
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 Jimmy Ryce Act cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
By petition for habeas corpus or, alternatively, mandamus, Charles Durden seeks tti challenge the conditions of his confinement at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) in DeSoto County. Durden was found to be a sexual predator and was committed for treatment under the Jimmy Ryce Act. Because he has not alleged a sufficient case for relief, we deny the petition.
The order of commitment, entered by the circuit court iii the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; in' and for Palm Beach County, placed Durden in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services. The order stated that Durden “shall be segregated from patients who are not committed under the Act” as required by section 394.917(2), Florida Statutes (2000).
Durden alleges that he is not being kept segregated from patients who are not committed under the Act. Because of this alleged fact, Durden asserts that he is being illegally confined, thus entitling him to ha-beas relief. The State responds that on the face of his petition, Durden has failed to show entitlement to habeas relief because he has alleged no facts that would entitle him to release, the traditional remedy and focus of this writ. According to the State, Durden seeks to challenge the con ditions of his confinement rather than the fact or duration of his confinement.
“The great writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right obtainable under our Constitution by all men who claim to be unlawfully imprisoned against their will. It is designed to test solely the legality of the prisoner’s imprisonment....” Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865, 869 (Fla.1953). If the petitioner is “unlawfully deprived of his liberty and is illegally detained against his will,” he will be discharged from custody. 66 So. 2d at 870. See also Cole v. State, 714 So. 2d 479, 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“A writ of habeas corpus may be employed to secure the release of a person who is being unlawfully, detained.”). Although Durden asserts that his confinement is “illegal” in that he is not segregated as required by statute, the remedy would be segregation, not discharge. Thus, Durden fails to make a prima facie case for habeas relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for habeas corpus.
Alternatively, Durden seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to keep him segregated. Because an evidentiary hearing would be required, Durden’s claim would more appropriately be heard by the circuit court, which is better equipped for fact-finding. See Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1999). Therefore, we deny the petition for mandamus without prejudice to any right Durden may have to file for mandamus or other relief in the circuit court of the circuit where he is being detained.
Petition for habeas corpus denied; petition for mandamus denied without prejudice.
BLUE, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1953)
- Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1999)
- Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs & Jack David Kelly v. Escambia Cnty. & Home Builders of W. Fla., Inc., 714 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)