DOUGLAS ALAN MCCRORY, 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 Fourth District reversed the trial court's assessment of fees and costs in a Jimmy Ryce civil commitment proceeding, holding that trial courts lack statutory authority to impose such costs, while affirming the commitment on other grounds and directing that ineffective assistance claims be raised by habeas corpus petition.
Trial courts lack statutory authority to impose costs or fees against a defendant in a Jimmy Ryce civil commitment proceeding.
[1] Trial courts lack statutory authority to impose costs or fees against a defendant in a Jimmy Ryce civil commitment proceeding.
[2] Ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in Jimmy Ryce proceedings must be raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit where custody lies, not on di…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“the trial court lacks the power to impose costs or fees in a Jimmy Ryce proceeding, because the authority to tax them as costs against the involuntarily committed defendant is not authorized by statute”
Court's holding regarding costs and fees in Jimmy Ryce proceedings, citing Chapman v. State
Douglas McCrory was subject to a civil commitment proceeding initiated by the Department of Children and Families under the Jimmy Ryce Act, and the tr…
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 Jimmy Ryce Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Douglas McCrory appeals from a civil commitment proceeding initiated by the Department of Children and Families under the Jimmy Ryce Act. We reverse the trial court s assessment of fees and costs against McCrory in accordance with this court’s recent opinion in Chapman v. State, 974 So. 2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), in which we held that “the trial court lacks the power to impose costs or fees in a Jimmy Ryce proceeding, because the authority to tax them as costs against the involuntarily committed defendant is not authorized by statute.”
We affirm on all other grounds raised by McCrory and note that McCra-ry’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is not cognizable in this court. We are in agreement with the first and second districts in concluding that claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a Jimmy Ryce proceeding must be raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed in the circuit where custody lies, absent a procedural rule equivalent to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Ivey v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 974 So. 2d 480, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Manning v. State, 913 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)).
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part.
WARNER, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Manning v. State, 913 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Ivey v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 974 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Malu v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 974 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Chapman v. State, 974 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)