DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, PETITIONER,
v.
MAURICE BLUE AND CEDRIC DAMES, 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 Department of Children and Families sought writs of certiorari to quash circuit court orders requiring it to advise where to transport two defendants found incompetent to stand trial or to take custody of them. The appellate court held that while the Department must take custody of committed defendants, courts cannot direct placement in specific facilities—that is a Department function.
The court must order the Department to take custody of committed defendants, but the court lacks authority to direct placement in a specific facility. Placement decisions are exclusively within the Department's purview, even if bed space is limited.
[1] A circuit court may order the Department of Children and Families to take custody of defendants found incompetent to stand trial.
[2] A trial court lacks the authority to direct the Department of Children and Families to place a committed individual in a specific treatment facility.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 court did not err in ordering the Department to take custody of the defendants.”
Establishes that trial courts can mandate the Department accept custody of incompetent defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaurice Blue and Cedric Dames were found incompetent to stand trial and committed to the Department of Children and Families. They were placed on a wa…
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 Capable Of Repetition Yet Evading Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Department of Children and Families (the Department), filed petitions for writs of certiorari to quash the circuit court orders requiring the Department to advise the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office where to transport defendants Maurice Blue and Cedric Dames or to take custody of the defendants. The orders also directed the Sheriffs Office to transport the defendants to the Florida State Hospital, if the Department failed to advise the Sheriffs Office. Both Blue and Dames were found to be incompetent to stand trial, committed to the Department, and placed on a waiting list to be transported to a forensic facility. The Department argued below that it did not have the ability to place the defendants as there was inadequate bed space in the forensic facilities and there were numerous persons ahead of the defendants on the waiting lists.
Although the transport of Blue and Dames to forensic facilities has now mooted the issues contained in the petitions, we write because the issue raised is capable of repetition yet may otherwise evade review. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. Mitchell, 844 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (denying a petition for writ of prohibition as moot but addressing whether the trial court had authority to order the Department to release the committed defendant for a furlough prior to trial).
The court did not err in ordering the Department to take custody of the defendants. This issue was recently decided by our sister court in Hadi v. Cordero, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D3051, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 3499149 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 6, 2006). See also Facyson v. Jenne, 821 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
We do agree with the Department that the court does not have the authority to direct the Department to place a committed individual in a specific facility. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Morrison, 727 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (quashing a commitment order and holding that placement of an individual into a specific treatment facility is determined by the Department and not the trial court).
We accordingly grant the petitions and quash the portions of the orders directing transportation of the defendants to the Florida State Hospital.
GUNTHER, STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agency FOR Persons With Disabilities v. State, 969 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…lacement, the trial court was without authority to mandate this transfer. See Department of Children and Families v. Morrison, 727 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 741 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1999); accord Department of Children and Families v. Blue, 951 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Department of Children and Families v. Harter, 861 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Department of Children and Family Services v. M.H., 830 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Morrison, 727 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Facyson v. Jenne, 821 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Hadi v. Cordero, 955 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Jehoshaphat Mitchell, 844 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)