THOMAS R. HORTON, PETITIONER,
v.
GRADY JUDD, SHERIFF OF POLK COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
Thomas Horton, a criminal defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed to trial, petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his involuntary commitment to a state hospital. The court granted the petition, finding that the trial court's commitment order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that Horton had a substantial probability of being restored to competency, as required by Florida Statute 916.13(1).
The court held that Horton's commitment was not authorized by section 916.13(1) because the trial court's finding that he 'might' be restored to competency was neither supported by the evidence nor satisfied the statutory requirement of clear and convincing evidence of a 'substantial probability' that he would regain competency in the foreseeable future.
[1] A criminal defendant found incompetent to proceed who is unlikely to regain competency in the foreseeable future must either be civilly committed or released.
[2] A court cannot lawfully impose conditions on the release of an incompetent defendant who is not eligible for commitment.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“There is a substantial probability that the mental illness causing the defendant's incompetence will respond to treatment and the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
The statutory requirement for involuntary commitment under section 916.13(1)(c) that the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHorton was a criminal defendant found incompetent to proceed to trial. Two mental health experts examined him and testified that it was unlikely he co…
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 Involuntary Commitment Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomas R. Horton, a criminal defendant in circuit court who was previously adjudicated incompetent to proceed to trial, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court seeking review of the order of the trial court committing him to the state hospital. Horton alleges that he is being illegally detained because he does not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment as outlined in section 916.13(1), Florida Statutes (2011). We previously granted the petition by order with directions that if the State did not initiate civil commitment proceedings, the trial court should release Horton on appropriate conditions pursuant to Florida Criminal Rule of Procedure 3.212(d).1 We write to explain our reasoning in this instance.
If there is an issue regarding a defendant’s competency, at least two mental health experts must examine the defendant to determine whether he is competent to proceed to trial. § 916.12(2). If a felony defendant is adjudged to be incompetent, section 916.13(1) sets forth the conditions that must be met before that defendant *440can be involuntarily committed. Among other things, it requires the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that “[tjhere is a substantial probability that the mental illness causing the defendant’s incompetence will respond to treatment and the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” § 916.13(l)(c).
Here, both appointed experts testified that it was unlikely that Horton could ever be restored to competency. In the order of involuntary commitment, the trial court found that a “witness testified that the Defendant might be restored to competency in the state hospital.”2 The finding that Horton “might” be restored to competency is neither supported by the evidence nor does it satisfy the statutory requirement of clear and convincing evidence that there be a “substantial probability” that the petitioner will regain competency in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, Horton’s commitment was not authorized by section 916.13(1). See Oren, 940 So.2d at 1273; Abreu-Gutierrez, 1 So.3d at 265-66. For this reason, we granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petition granted.
ALTENBERND, KELLY, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schofield v. Grady C. Judd, 268 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
-
Dept. of Child. & Families v. Michelet Pierre & State of Fla. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…ight' be restored to competency . . . does [not] satisfy the statutory requirement of clear and convincing evidence that there be a 'substantial probability' that the [defendant] will regain competency in the foreseeable future." Horton v. Judd, 80 So. 3d 439, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). ---PAGE 5--- The record in this case is void of any evidence that Mr. Pierre's "incompetence will respond to treatment" or that he "will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future." See § 916.13…
-
Dept. of Child. & Families v. Maher Mohammad Musa & State of Fla. (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…] 'might' be restored to competency . . . does [not] satisfy the statutory requirement of clear and convincing evidence that there be a 'substantial probability' that the petitioner will regain competency in the foreseeable future." Horton v. Judd, 80 So. 3d 439, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). We grant the Department's petition for certiorari and quash the order of commitment.1 1As was the case in Garcia, "[b]ecause our review is by certiorari, we express no opinion on what the trial court should do . . . other th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jabulani Chembo Graham v. State, 940 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Abreu-Gutierrez v. James, 1 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Patton v. State, 712 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Graham v. Jenne, 837 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)