MICHAEL ALAN WISNIEWSKI, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed commitment order for insanity acquittee because trial court failed to include required statutory findings of mental illness and manifest dangerousness, despite conducting adequate hearing.
A commitment order under Fla. Stat. § 916.15(1) must include explicit statutory findings of mental illness and manifest dangerousness, even if the trial court conducted a reasoned examination of these criteria.
[1] A trial court's commitment order under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Wisniewski was found not guilty by reason of insanity for murdering his teenage son in 1994 and was committed. The trial court held a hearing …
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.
CASANUEVA, Acting Chief Judge.
Michael Wisniewski has appealed from an order entered on February 4, 2000, which continued his commitment after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the 1994 murder of his teenage son. For commitment to be continued pursuant to section 916.15(1), Florida Statutes (1999), the court must find that the defendant is mentally 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, (Senior) Judge, Concur. . We note that Mr. Wisniewski has filed a new appeal in this court, No. 2D01-4073, in which he challenges a subsequent order dated June 29, 2001, that continued his commitment and authorized treatment at a forensic facility. This court cannot consider the sufficiency of that order at this time; but, in any event, the subsequent order does not render moot the need for the trial court to articulate its findings in the order under review in this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Tavares v. State, 871 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…finding of not guilty by reason of insanity may be involuntarily committed pursuant to such finding if the defendant is mentally ill and, because of the illness, is manifestly dangerous to himself or herself or others. See also Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court, thus, has the initial responsibility to determine if a defendant is (1) mentally ill, and (2) because of the illness, “manifestly dangerous to himself or herself or others.” If the defendant satisfies these crite…1 / 2
-
Woods v. State, 969 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…. § 916.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). Thus, for commitment to be continued pursuant to section 916.15, the court must find that the defendant is mentally ill and is manifestly dangerous to himself or to others. See Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In the instant case, the trial court did not find that the petitioner was manifestly dangerous to himself or others and failed to include findings of fact on which such a conclusion could have been based. The court merely made th…
-
Yusef Furqan v. State, 56 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ailed to make explicit findings as to either of these factors in its order of commitment. Hence, the order was deficient and result [*97] ed in a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.217(b)(1); Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901, 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Woods v. State, 969 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, we grant Furqan’s petition and quash the order continuing his involuntary commitment. Petition granted, order quashed, and remanded for further proceedi…
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
- Mannarelli v. State, 767 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)