FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL ANDRE DAVIS, A/K/A MICHAEL DAVIS, 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 court held that a trial court may commit a defendant to the Department of Children & Families but cannot designate the specific facility for treatment.
The trial court found a defendant incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the Department of Children & Families, specifying a particular treat…
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.
Confession of Error
COPE, C.J.
The Florida Department of Children & Families has filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking to quash a portion of a commitment order. We grant the petition. Respondent-defendant Michael Andre Davis is charged with first degree murder and other offenses. In an order dated September 22, 2005 the trial court found the defendant incompetent to proceed to trial and committed him to the Department on account of mental illness. The Department has no quarrel with the trial court’s factual findings or the commitment to the Department for treatment for mental illness.
The Department does object, however, to the following language which the trial court included in its order:
6. This Court hereby recommends that the Defendant be placed at South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center [“SFETC”].
7. The Defendant shall not be transferred to any state hospital other than SFETC without the prior authorization of this Court.
Order, Sept. 22, 2005.
The Department 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 from placing the defendant at any facility other than SFETC.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. The State of Fla. & C.Z., 201 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…idual beyond what is required by statute. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. Carmona, 159 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Amaya, 10 So. 3d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Davis, 923 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).2 This is such a case. We do not underestimate the predicament in which the trial judge found herself in this case. For two years, the court, the State and the Office of the Public Defender had labored to provide assistance to C.…
-
Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Leons, 948 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…-, 2006 WL 3499149 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 6, 2006) (order requiring DCF to comply with statutory duty to place committed incompetent offenders in forensic facility did not depart from essential requirements of law); Dep’t of Children & Families v. Davis, 923 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (court cannot designate placement of defendant in specific facility); Dep’t of Children & Families v. Harter, 861 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (trial court cannot direct DCF to provide sexual offender treatment as part of defen…
Authorities Cited
- Emilio Maceo Quiala v. State, 659 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)