DANIEL KELLOND, 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.
The court held that an order continuing involuntary commitment is facially deficient if it fails to make specific findings that the petitioner has a mental illness and is manifestly dangerous due to that illness.
Petitioner was found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity and sought certiorari review of the trial court's order continuing his invol…
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 Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order continuing his involuntary commitment after being found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity. He argues that the order of commitment was facially deficient and a departure from the essential requirements of law because it failed to make specific findings that Petitioner had “a mental illness and, because of the illness, is manifestly dangerous to himself or herself or others.” § 916.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).1 We agree.
“[F]or commitment to be continued pursuant to section 916.15, the court must find that the defendant is mentally ill and is manifestly dangerous to himself or to others.” Woods v. State, 969 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Failure to make written findings relevant to this determination renders the order facially deficient, constituting a departure from the essential requirements of law. Id.; see also Wisniewski v. State, 805 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the trial court entered a facially deficient order because it “merely made the conclusory finding that the petitioner ‘continues to meet the criteria for his continued commitment under the supervision of the Department of Children and Families.’ ” Woods, 969 So.2d at 410.
Accordingly, we GRANT the petition, QUASH the order continuing commitment, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.L.D. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Sellers v. State, 969 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Woods v. State, 969 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Yusef Furqan v. State, 56 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)