THOMAS J. WASHINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 the trial court erred in determining that the department had exhausted all treatment for the appellant, as beneficial treatment was available at another facility.
Appellant was committed as a mentally-disordered sex offender and a hearing was held to determine release criteria. Testimony showed available treatme…
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 Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*465] PER CURIAM.
Appellant was adjudged to be a mentally-disordered sex offender pursuant to Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), on November 10, 1975. After the committing court was notified that the treatment of the appellant had been completed, a hearing was held May 23, 1977, to determine whether the appellant met the criteria for release as specified in Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.1 We think the court erred in its determination that the department had exhausted all treatment for the appellant.
The testimony at the hearing clearly revealed that treatment which might be beneficial to the appellant was available within the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, although such treatment would require the transfer of the appellant to another facility. Thus the testimony showed that the department had not exhausted all treatment for the appellant, and therefore the appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for discharge. Under these circumstances, the trial court was required to recommit the appellant pursuant to Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.
Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur. . The court by an order dated July 22, 1977, found the appellant met the criteria for release under Section 917.20, as amended by § 19 of Chapter 77-312, Laws of Florida, (effective July 1, 1977), because although the appellant remained a present threat to others, the Department had exhausted all treatment for the offender.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cummings v. State, 379 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…available treatment. On receiving the Department’s report that all available treatment had been exhausted, the court scheduled a hearing on pending matters but refused an evidentiary hearing and proceeded to sentencing. Citing Washington v. State, 355 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and O’Steen v. State, 366 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), in which evidentiary hearings were had by the court, Cummings urges that he also is entitled to controvert and adduce proof refuting the Department’s decision that it has…
-
Lymon O'Steen v. State, 366 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…the clinical summary recommended that O’Steen be transferred to South Florida State Hospital and be placed in a particular program which would be more suitable for treating O’Steen. Therefore, we find this case is controlled by Washington v. State, 355 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) wherein this court stated: The testimony at the hearing clearly revealed that treatment which might be beneficial to the appellant was available within the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, although such treatmen…