JOSEPH FRANTZIS, 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 the time limits for trial and continuances under the Jimmy Ryce Act are not jurisdictional, and the trial court did not lose jurisdiction due to delays.
Appellant challenged a civil commitment order, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction because the trial was not held within 150 days of the probabl…
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 Jurisdictional Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges a final order of civil commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act, sections 394.910-932, Florida Statutes (2007). Section 394.916(1) provides the court shall conduct a trial within 30 days after the determination of probable cause. Section 394.916(2) states the court may grant one continuance for “not more than 120 days.” Appellant argues the limit on continuances in subsection (2) is jurisdictional. He asserts that because he was not brought to trial within 150 days of the probable cause determination, the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings. Therefore, he argues, he is entitled to a dismissal of the civil commitment action with prejudice.
In State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817 (Fla.2002), the supreme court found the 30 day provision in subsection (1) was not jurisdic*1134tional. We find no reason to treat the 120 day provision in subsection (2) differently. Moreover, below appellant twice filed a waiver of his right to trial within 30 days of the probable cause determination, and much of the delay in the proceedings was attributable to him. We, therefore, find no merit in appellant’s contentions.
We also determine the other issues he raised are without merit. Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.