DANNY TIBURCIO, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Incompetency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks release from the Florida State Hospital because he is incompetent to proceed on his criminal charges and cannot be restored to competency in the foreseeable future. Petitioner also seeks dismissal of the pending charges. The State concedes that Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful, but argues that the dismissal of the charges is premature because five years have not elapsed since Petitioner was found incompetent. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.213(a)(1). We agree with the State on both issues.
Accordingly, we grant the Petition in part and deny it in part. We direct the trial court to order Petitioner’s release. Although the State has indicated that it does not intend to seek civil commitment at this time, this decision is without prejudice to the State instituting civil commitment proceedings.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
ORFINGER, C.J., TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. State, 99 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…. We find that the trial court’s order correctly denied the motion to dismiss as to Count I, the felony, because it has not been five years since Bryant was declared incompetent. Therefore, his motion is premature as to Count I. Tiburcio v. State, 95 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). However, we find the court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied Bryant’s motion as to Count II, the misdemeanor. It is apparent from the record that more than one year has passed from the date of Bryant…
-
State v. Benninghoff, 188 So. 3d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…Procedure have uniformly and consistently enforced the five-year requirement before dismissal. See Bryant v. State, 99 So. 3d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss because five years had not elapsed); Tiburcio v. State, 95 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing dismissal of charges because five years had not elapsed); Mosher v. State, 876 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss prior to expiration of five years). Here, less than four year…
-
State v. Carey, 212 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…Procedure have uniformly and consistently enforced the five-year requirement before dismissal. See Bryant v. State, 99 So. 3d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss because five years had not elapsed); Tiburcio v. State, 95 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing dismissal of charges because five years had not elapsed). Mosher v. State, 876 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss prior to expiration of five years). Here, less than four years…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence