TERRANCE LEE FITZSIMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process Safeguards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, under charges of second-degree murder, assault with intent to commit first-degree murder, and burglary, was found not guilty by reason of insanity following a nonjury trial. The trial court, thereupon, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.460, forthwith committed him to the Division of Mental Health finding him manifestly dangerous to the peace and safety of the people.
It is not clear from the order of commitment, nor from any other document included in the record on appeal, whether appellant was afforded a hearing by the trial court specifically on the issue of his being manifestly dangerous at the time of commitment or subjected to examination relative to this question since commitment. Appellant is entitled to effective notice of and opportunity for a hearing replete with due process safeguards at both the time of commitment and upon subsequent re-examination. See Powell v. Genung, 306 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1974).
Affirmed without prejudice to appellant to file a petition requesting a hearing before the trial court as to whether he is manifestly dangerous to the peace and safety of the people.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and McNULTY and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 358 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…dural safeguards provided others at the time of commitment. Those objections are obviated by a hearing and an independent determination of the acquitee’s mental status and dangerous propensities at the time of commitment. E. g., Fitzsimons v. State, 347 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); People v. Lally, 19 N.Y.2d 27, 277 N.Y.S.2d 654, 224 N.E. 2d 87 (1966). We are not concerned here with procedural requirements and substantive standards for initial commitment of acquitees in Florida, [*200] nor with potential du…
-
Evans v. Evans, 443 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…rah Evans can demonstrate that she has made a diligent effort toward rehabilitation which has failed through no fault of her own, she can move for an extension of the rehabilitative alimony or for an award of permanent alimony. See Greene v. Greene, 347 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Finally, Dennis Evans contends, which contention is undisputed by Sarah Evans, that the trial court erred when it failed to order an automatic termination of child support. We agree and direct that upon remand the supplemental…
-
Barker v. Barker, 384 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…se, she may, upon a showing of diligent effort toward rehabilitation which through no fault of her own has been unsuccessful, move the trial court for an extension of the rehabilitative alimony or for an award of permanent alimony. Greene v. Greene, 347 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Gann v. Gann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). We affirm also the amount of alimony and child support awarded because it passes the reasonableness test set forth in Cana-k…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Powell v. Genung, 306 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1974)