STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RAMON ALVEREZ, ET AL., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over a conflict certification to address whether the Jimmy Ryce Act requires probable cause petitions to be supported by sworn proof from a mental health professional. The Court held that while sworn proof is required, it need not come specifically from a mental health professional and may take the form of an affidavit similar to those used in arrest warrants.
The Court held that the Jimmy Ryce Act requires probable cause petitions to be supported by sworn proof, but this proof need not necessarily come from a mental health professional. An affidavit similar to that found in an arrest warrant is sufficient under the Act.
[1] A probable cause petition under the Jimmy Ryce Act requires sworn proof.
[2] The sworn proof supporting a probable cause petition under the Jimmy Ryce Act may be in the form of an affidavit similar to that found in an arrest warrant.
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 Act requires the probable cause petition to be supported by sworn proof in the form of an affidavit or live testimony by a mental health professional who has evaluated the individual”
States the precise legal issue the Court was addressing regarding Jimmy Ryce Act requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an application of the Jimmy Ryce Act, which addresses civil commitment procedures for individuals deemed sexually dangerous. The Fif…
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
QUINCE, J.
We have for review Alverez v. State, 840 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), in which the petitioner alleges the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal expressly and directly conflicts with Melvin v. State, 804 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), on the same question of law. At the time the Fifth District issued its decision in Alverez, the case of Kephart v. Kearney, 826 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), quashed sub nom. Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.2006), was pending review in this Court on a certified conflict with Melvin on the same issue. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In Kephart, this Court addressed the same issue of whether the Jimmy Ryce Act requires the probable cause petition to be supported by sworn proof in the form of an affidavit or live testimony by a mental health professional who has evaluated the individual. See Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006).
This Court concluded, “as did the Second District in Melvin and the Fourth District in Kep-hart, that the Act requires the probable cause petition to be supported by sworn proof.” Kephart, 932 So. 2d at 1094.
However, we disapproved the Fourth District’s opinion to the extent that Kephart required a mental health professional to provide the sworn proof accompanying the petition. Id. This Court held “that a probable cause petition accompanied by an affidavit similar to that found in an arrest warrant is sufficient under the Act.” Id. We quashed the opinion of the Fourth District in Kephart “to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion” and approved the Second District’s opinion in Melvin. Id.
In response to this Court’s order to show cause dated June 13, 2006, respondents failed to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction in the case, summarily quash the decision being reviewed and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Kephart. We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in Kephart.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alverez v. State, 950 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…sed by psychologists, DCF personnel, or the like, but that is an issue that need not be decided at this time. If it remains a question, it will be a question for another day. PETITIONS DENIED. THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur. . State v. Alverez, 940 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.2006).…
Authorities Cited
- Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2006)
- Melvin v. State, 804 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Kephart v. Kearney, 826 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Alverez v. State, 840 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)