CHARLES HUGHES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND WAYNE IVEY, BREVARD COUNTY SHERIFF, APPELLEES
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.
Charles Hughes, adjudicated incompetent to proceed and ordered involuntarily admitted to residential care, was detained in the Brevard County Jail beyond the statutory 15-day emergency detention limit. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition and remanded for consideration of Baker Act proceedings, recognizing that his continued detention lacked statutory authorization.
The court reversed the denial of habeas corpus relief and remanded because detention exceeding fifteen days is not authorized by statute. However, rather than ordering release, the court remanded for consideration of Baker Act proceedings under Chapter 394, recognizing the trial court's finding that Hughes posed a danger to himself and others.
[1] A defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed may be held in jail as an emergency facility for up to 15 days.
[2] Continued detention of a defendant adjudicated incompetent to proceed beyond the statutory maximum of 15 days is not authorized by statute or rule of procedure.
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“A defendant "who has been adjudicated incompetent to proceed or not guilty by reason of insanity" may be held in a jail "as an emergency facility for up to 15 days."”
Establishes the statutory maximum detention period in jail for incompetent defendants, forming the basis for finding Hughes's detention unlawful.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHughes was charged with attempted first-degree murder, arson, and burglary offenses. On April 28, 2016, the trial court adjudicated him incompetent to…
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 Incompetency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Charles Hughes, appeals the denial of his habeas. corpus petition. Because the trial court’s order results in a term of detention greater than the statutory maximum of fifteen days, we reverse and remand for consideration of Baker Act proceedings.
The State charged Hughes with attempted first-degree murder, arson of an occupied dwelling, burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a conveyance, and two counts of arson. However, on April 28, 2016, the trial court adjudicated Appellant incompetent to proceed and dismissed his charges without prejudice pursuant to section 916.303, Florida Statutes (2016). The trial court separately found that Hughes posed a danger to himself and others, thus qualifying for involuntary admission to a secure *1239residential facility. The court ordered Hughes’s involuntary admission, which he appealed, resulting in a stay of his admission to residential care. See ■§ 393.11(12)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016), On January 5, 2017, Hughes filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued detention in the Brevard County Jail. The trial court denied relief.
A defendant “who has been adjudicated incompetent to proceed or not guilty by reason of insanity” may be held in a jail “as an emergency facility for up to 15 days.” § 916.107, Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added). Thus, because Hughes’s detention exceeded fifteen days, “[n]o statute or rule of procedure authorize^] his continued detention,” and the trial court had grounds to grant his petition. See Pangburn v. Bradshaw, 39 So.3d 578, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). However, just as the Fourth District Court did in Facyson v. Jenne, 821 So.2d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we find that, despite our “power to release individuals who are being detained without legal authority, we do' not deem such to be an appropriate remedy in this case at this time.” Instead, we recognize the trial court’s finding that Hughes posed a danger to himself and others and grant habeas corpus relief “subject first to consideration of Baker Act proceedings under Chapter 394 by the trial court' if appropriate.” Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. B.N., 979 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
WALLIS, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Facyson v. Jenne, 821 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. B.N. & State of Fla., 979 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Pangburn v. Ric L. Bradshaw, 39 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)