DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
JEREMY GRUBBS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Department of Corrections petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order requiring it to pay for sex offender treatment for Jeremy Grubbs. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the trial court's order violated the separation of powers doctrine by requiring an executive agency to spend funds against legislative determination that offenders must pay for treatment at their own expense.
The court held that the trial court's order violates the separation of powers doctrine and must be quashed. The judiciary cannot interfere with legislative discretion in determining funds required of an executive agency or with the agency's executive discretion in spending appropriated funds.
[1] A trial court order requiring a state agency to spend its funds violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
[2] The judiciary may not interfere with legislative discretion in determining an executive agency's required funds or the agency's executive discretion in spending appropria…
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's order departs from the essential requirements of law by requiring a separate branch of government to spend its funds. The judiciary branch may not interfere with legislative discretion in determining the funds required of an executive branch agency nor with the agency's executive discretion in spending appropriated funds.”
Establishes the core separation of powers violation at the heart of the case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrubbs was adjudicated guilty of lewd and lascivious act on a child under sixteen and placed on one year of sex offender community control followed by…
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 Appropriation Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The Department of Corrections (DOC) petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the trial court that directs it to pay for Grubbs’ sex offender treatment. We grant the petition.
Grubbs was placed on one year of sex offender community control to be followed by four years of sex offender probation after the trial court adjudicated him guilty of lewd and lascivious act by a person over eighteen years of age on a child under sixteen years of age. As a condition of probation, Grubbs was ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program “at the probationer’s or community contro-lee’s own expense.” Nevertheless, the trial court subsequently entered an order modifying community control to require DOC “to pay for treatment re: sex offender counseling for deaf client.”
DOC, a nonparty to the criminal proceeding, filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this court seeking relief from the trial court’s order. We have jurisdiction because DOC’s nonparty status deprives it of an adequate remedy by direct appeal. See Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Myers, 675 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
In this proceeding, DOC argues that the trial court’s order violates the doctrine of separation of powers. Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const. We agree. The trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law by requiring a sepa rate branch of government to spend its funds. The. judiciary branch may not interfere with legislative discretion in determining the funds required of an executive branch agency nor with the agency’s executive discretion in spending appropriated funds. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing court order directing DJJ to pay for hospital evaluation of juvenile). See also Dep’t of Children and Family Servs. v. Birchfield, 718 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing order holding DCF in contempt for failing to place appellee in specific program on ground that court’s consideration of DCF’s ability to move funds to effectuate placement violated separation of powers because it was tantamount to directing DCF how to spend its funds). The legislature has determined that all those who are placed on community supervision for, inter alia, committing a lewd and lascivious act must as a condition of that supervision participate in and successfully complete a sex offender treatment program at their own expense. § 948.03(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, the legislature has determined that offenders such as Grubbs must pay for their own treatment.
Accordingly, we grant certiorari and quash the trial court’s order directing DOC to pay for Grubbs’ sex offender treatment.
SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
City OF Freeport v. Beach Cmty. Bank, 108 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
-
Off. OF the State Attorney FOR the Eleventh Jud. Cir. v. Polites, 904 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…s v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F, 589 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1991). When a court interferes with an executive agency’s discretion in spending its appropriate funds, it is encroaching on the powers of the agency. See, e.g., Dep’t of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Judges may not direct an executive agency to spend its money in a particular way. See Brown v. Fearer, 726 So. 2d 322, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Although the Office of the State Attorney is found in article V of the Florida C…1 / 2
-
Dep't OF Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…la. 5th DCA 2004). The certiorari petition in that case was dismissed because there was no reviewable order in that case, only a court minutes form. See generally, State v. Wagner, 863 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.2004). In Department of Corrections v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the Department successfully obtained certiora-ri review of a circuit court order which required it to pay for a sex offender treatment program for a deaf client. The court concluded that the trial court departed from the essentia…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Myers, 675 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Dep't OF Juv. Just. v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Terrano v. Terrano, 718 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Birchfield, 718 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)