STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, SOUTH FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL, RELATOR,
v.
ALFONSO C. SEPE, AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION, 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.
This case concerns a Florida state hospital's challenge to a judge's order committing a criminal defendant for treatment. The appellate court found the judge exceeded his authority by dictating the specific methods and duration of treatment, infringing on the hospital's jurisdiction and the separation of powers.
Yes, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. The court's mandatory directions to the state agency concerning the method and duration of treatment usurped the agency's statutory authority and violated the doctrine of separation of powers.
[1] A trial court exceeds its jurisdiction by issuing mandatory directions to a state agency regarding the method and duration of treatment for a committed individual, partic…
[2] Directing a state agency on the specific drugs to be administered or withheld, and fixing the period for directed treatment, usurps the agency's statutory authority to de…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“However, by including in the order the above described mandatory directions to the state agency as to the method and duration of the treatment, the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction”
Establishes the core legal finding that the judge exceeded his authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA circuit judge ordered a criminal defendant committed to the South Florida State Hospital for treatment and rehabilitation. The order included specif…
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 Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, Judge.
In this original proceeding in prohibition we issued a rule nisi. The respondent filed a response incorporating a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied, and we hold the response fails to show good cause why prohibition should not issue.
In the order of the trial court committing a defendant in a criminal case to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, South Florida State Hospital, for treatment and rehabilitation, the court undertook to direct the state agency as to the manner of its treatment of the defendant, including direction as to the drugs to be administered or not administered, and fixing a period for which the directed treatment must extend.
The order committing the criminal defendant to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was within the province of the court, under Rule 3.210(a) (3) CrPR, 33 F.S.A. However, by including in the order the above described mandatory directions to the state agency as to the method and duration of the treatment, the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction; first, because the state agency had not been brought into the case by proper process, and had not been furnished with notice and an opportunity to be heard thereon. See State ex rel. O’Dare v. Kehoe, Fla.App., 189 So. 2d 268. Secondly, such directions to the state agency purporting to designate and control the type and duration of treatment of the person committed, amounted to usurping the jurisdiction of the state agency to determine those matters, as it is authorized to do by law (§ 394.459 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). See Dade County v. Baker, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 545. To thus invade the functions of the state agency as a division of the executive department is in derogation of the doctrine of the separation of powers of the state government.
The rule nisi in prohibition is made absolute, and thereby the respondent is restrained from enforcing the provisions of the order relating to the manner and duration of treatment of the defendant committed to the said state agency.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
The Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. I.C., 742 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…CF facility and being shuttled to other placements, without regard to the particular facts of the child’s case, the judge is interfering with the general operations of the agency. See State, ex rel. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sepe, 291 So. 2d 108, 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Stoutamire, 602 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Rilla White Foundation, Inc., 720 So. 2d at 573, we determined that the t…
-
State v. Nourse, 437 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…her, if necessary. The court had no jurisdiction to direct a specific placement and treatment of an individual committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. State ex rel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe, 291 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Also see Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division of Mental Health, South Florida State Hospital v. State, 338 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We note, however, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative S…
-
State v. Schreiber, 561 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…circuit court had no jurisdiction to direct specific placement and treatment of a juvenile committed to HRS, since the court did not have jurisdiction to manage details of how HRS will attempt to rehabilitate juveniles. In State ex rel. HRS v. Sepe, 291 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the Third District granted prohibition, holding that the circuit court was acting in excess of its jurisdiction in directing the method and duration of treatment to be provided to a criminal defendant committed to HRS. The Sepe c…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. v. Honorable Paul Baker, 237 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Beatrice O'Dare v. Honorable John J. Kehoe, 189 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)