WILLIE S. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 patient's waiver of presence at a commitment hearing must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and the court below failed to certify this.
Appellant challenged an order of involuntary inpatient placement, arguing his waiver of presence at the commitment hearing was insufficient. The state…
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 Collateral Legal Consequences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Willie S. Brown, appeals an order of involuntary inpatient placement under section 394.467, Florida Statutes (2006). The appellant argues that the appellant’s alleged waiver of his presence at the commitment hearing was insufficient to allow the hearing to proceed. The state concedes this point for purposes of this appeal but indicates that the appellant was recently placed in a less restrictive alternative and therefore a rehearing on the matter is moot. We have considered the parties’ arguments on this point and discharge the Court’s show cause order of February 26, 2007, pursuant to Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1992). Further, we agree with the appellant on the merits and therefore remand for a new commitment hearing.
A patient has a fundamental right to be present at a commitment proceeding. Register v. State, 946 So. 2d 50, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). A patient may waive his or her right to be personally present, but a court must certify through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Register, 946 So. 2d at 50. The court below did not address or question whether the appellant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; therefore, this matter must be remanded for a new hearing.
Further, remand is proper because the collection and determination of fees for patients in treatment facilities are collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party which prevent an otherwise moot case from being dismissed. Godwin, 593 So. 2d at 212.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new commitment hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mouliom v. Ne. Fla. State Hosp., 128 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…is Court reviews a defendant’s unpreserved claim that a trial court committed fundamental error de novo.”). . [2] This court has held that “[a] patient has a fundamental [due process] right to be present at a commitment proceeding.” Brown v. State, 953 So. 2d 688, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Register, supra). This right was recognized in the context of an initial commitment hearing held by the circuit court under section 394.467(6), but the right is not limited to such hearings. The patient also has a fu…
-
Brown v. State, 956 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…da Statutes. Appellant argues that appellant’s alleged waiver of her presence at the commitment hearing was insufficient and the state correctly concedes that the point has merit. Register v. State, 946 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 953 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The commitment order is reversed and we remand for a new commitment hearing. REVERSED and REMANDED. VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Ezekiel Register v. State, 946 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Joehnk v. State, 689 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)