MOSES D. MCCRAY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A criminal defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed challenges a trial court order that denied his motion to dismiss charges and continued his conditional release program. The court granted the petition regarding the conditional release program but denied relief regarding the dismissal of charges, finding the defendant did not meet statutory criteria for involuntary commitment and fewer than five years had elapsed since the incompetency determination.
The court granted the petition to the extent it challenged the conditional release program continuation, quashing that portion of the order because McCray did not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment required for conditional release eligibility. The court denied the petition regarding the dismissal of the information because fewer than five years had elapsed since the original incompetency determination, as required by statute for dismissal.
[1] A defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed due to mental illness is not eligible for placement on conditional release under section 916.17, Florida Statutes, if they…
[2] A departure from the essential requirements of law can be demonstrated by the misapplication of the plain language of a statute.
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“Conditional release under section 916.17 is appropriate only when a defendant meets the criteria for commitment”
Establishes the legal requirement that conditional release is only available to defendants who qualify for involuntary commitment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoses McCray was adjudicated incompetent to proceed due to mental illness. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss the information and continued …
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 Conditional Release cases and more on FLexlaw
In this certiorari proceeding, a criminal defendant who has been adjudicated incompetent to proceed due to mental illness seeks relief from those portions of a trial court order that denied his motion to dismiss the information and continued, with modifications, a program of conditional release previously imposed pursuant to section 916.17, Florida Statutes (2014). To the extent he seeks relief from that portion of the trial court’s order continuing the program of conditional release, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and that portion of the trial court’s order is quashed. Petitioner did not qualify for involuntary commitment under section *1297916.13 and therefore was not eligible for placement on conditional release under section 916.17 as a matter of statutory-text. See § 916.17 (providing for placement on a program of conditional release “in lieu of’ placement in involuntary commitment); Dep't of Children & Families v. Carmona, 159 So.3d 165, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[Conditional release under section 916.17 is appropriate only when a defendant meets the criteria for commitment ....” (quoting Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Amaya, 10 So.3d 152, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009))); see also Gonzalez v. State, 15 So.3d 37, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A departure from the essential requirements of law ... can be shown by misapplication of the plain language in a statute.”).
To the extent the petition seeks relief from that portion of the trial court’s order denying dismissal of the information, it is denied based on a failure to show a departure from the essential requirements of law because fewer than five years have elapsed since the original determination that Mr. McCray was incompetent to proceed due to mental illness. See § 916.145; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.213(a)(1); State v. Benninghoff, 188 So.3d 64, 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (providing a collection of cases that stand for the proposition that “[c]ases reviewing the dismissal of charges, pursuant to section 916.145, Florida Statutes, and rule 3.213 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure have uniformly and consistently enforced the five-year requirement before dismissal”).
Petition granted in part and denied in part.
LaROSE, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCray v. State, 230 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…, Moses McCray suffers from mental illness. Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated him incompetent to proceed to,trial. He now petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order entered following our decision in McCray v. State, 200 So. 3d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In particular, Mr. McCray seeks relief from that portion of the order imposing “appropriate release conditions” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(d). We have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedu…
-
State v. Carey, 212 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…. Here, less than four years elapsed before the trial court dismissed the charge against the defendant. Based on a plain reading of rule 3.213, section 916.145, and case law, the trial court erred in dismissing the charge.”); accord McCray v. State, 200 So. 3d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“To the extent the petition seeks relief from that portion of the trial court’s order denying dismissal of the information, it is denied based on a failure to show a departure from the essential requirements of law because…
Authorities Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 15 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Amaya, 10 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Carmona, 159 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- State v. Benninghoff, 188 So. 3d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)