RAMON ALVEREZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2007-03-23
No. 5D01-3560
THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.
950 So. 2d 1287 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2007)

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.


Holding

The court denied the petitions because the State's remedial steps met the requirements of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Kephart v. Hadi.


Facts & Procedural History

The court was asked to reconsider twelve consolidated petitions in light of a Florida Supreme Court decision. The parties submitted supplemental memor…

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Remand cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
GRIFFIN, J.

GRIFFIN, J.

We have this consolidated case after quashal and remand1 from the Florida Supreme Court for us to reconsider in light of the high court’s decision in Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.2006). The parties have filed, at our request, supplemental memoranda addressing the effect of the decision on the twelve petitions included in the remanded consolidated case.

Appellate Public Defender, John Selden, has provided us with a well-written, thorough and thoughtful response. In it, he informs the court that due to the passage of time, several petitions have become moot. Moreover, under the high court’s decision in Kephart, the remedial steps that were taken by the State in all of these cases, including the filing of motions to amend the petitions, amended petitions containing a verification by the State Attorney, and verification of the attached doctors’ reports, meet the supreme court’s requirements. Accordingly, we deny the petitions.

Petitioners do request that this court clarify the requirements for an oath or affirmation to be used 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).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw