ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
HOWARD AULT, AS DEFENDANT IN STATE V. AULT AND STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., a private contractor providing medical services at the Broward County Jail, sought certiorari review of a circuit court order requiring it to follow a specific medical protocol for documenting psychotropic medication administration to a capital case defendant. The Florida District Court of Appeal quashed the order, holding that the trial court lacked authority to dictate jail medical procedures, which fall within the executive and legislative branches' province.
The trial court lacks authority to dictate how a medical contractor carries out the sheriff's duty to provide medical care to jail inmates. Operation of the county jail is within the province of the executive and legislative branches, not the judicial branch, and the court's order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law that would materially injure Armor.
[1] A non-party to a criminal case cannot seek direct appeal for relief.
[2] Certiorari review is appropriate for a non-final order that constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and will cause material injury throughout the r…
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“Operation of the county jail is within the province of the executive and legislative branches of government, not the judicial branch.”
Establishes the primary legal principle that courts lack authority to dictate jail operations and medical procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArmor Correctional Health Services contracted with the Broward County Sheriff to provide health care services to jail inmates. A criminal defendant in…
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 Non-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., seeks certiorari review of a non-final order of the circuit court entered on June 16, 2006 in a criminal case. The order required Armor to follow a specific medical protocol to document the administration of a defendant’s psychotropic medication. The defendant1 is in the Broward County Jail pending a penalty phase proceeding in a capital case. The Sheriff of Broward County contracted with Armor to provide health care services to those confined in the county jail.
We conclude that the June 16 order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law which will materially injure Armor throughout the remainder of the proceedings. Because Armor is not a party to the criminal case, a direct appeal in that case will not provide it with relief. See Florida Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Myers, 675 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Operation of the county jail is within the province of the executive and legislative branches of government, not the judicial branch. See Arrington v. Wainwright, 452 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989)). While the system devised by the circuit court may be a good idea from the standpoint of providing hard, objective evidence that the defendant has received the appropriate medication, the trial court has no authority to dictate how Armor carries out the sheriffs duty to provide medical care to jail inmates. Compare Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (reversing portions of defendant’s sentence where trial court directed Department of Corrections to place defendant in specific drug treatment center and to provide specified treatment and medication).
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and we quash the June 16, 2006 order of the circuit court.
STONE, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Although given an opportunity to file a response to the petition, the criminal defendant has not done so. The state’s response to the petition observes merely that the defendant, as the beneficiary of the challenged order, was the party who should respond.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Santos, 315 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ity of Coral Gables, 127 So. 3d 869, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (noting the executive functions of a city cannot be supervised by the courts, absent the violation of a specific constitutional provision or law); Armor Corr. Health Servs., Inc. v. Ault, 942 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Operation of the county jail is within the province of the executive and legislative branches of government, not the judicial branch.”). Any powers the trial court might exercise in this regard can only stem from its judic…
-
Abdo v. State, 144 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…Abdo’s nonparty status. See Dep’t of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d 1147, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (stating petitioner’s nonparty status in criminal proceedings left it with no adequate remedy by direct appeal); Armor Corr. Health Servs., Inc. v. Ault, 942 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Because Armor is not a party to the criminal case, a direct appeal in that case will not provide it with relief.”); Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Myers, 675 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (determinin…
-
Forney v. Crews, 112 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…private designates carry out the duty to provide health care to prisoners, so long as no statute or constitutional requirement is violated. See Bradshaw v. Sandler, 955 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Armor Correctional Health Servs., Inc. v. Ault, 942 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In his appellate briefs, Mr. For-ney also challenges the trial court’s disposition of his motion to disqualify the trial judge, apparently filed and ruled upon after the entry of the final order and denial of rehearing. See gen…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1974)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989)
- Howard v. State, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Myers, 675 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Arrington v. Louie L. Wainwright, 452 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)