Abdullah v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Abdullah v. State

429 So. 2d 1359, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20740

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1983

DocketNo. AM-213

StatusPublished

This text of 429 So. 2d 1359 (Abdullah v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdullah v. State, 429 So. 2d 1359, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20740 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Abdullah appeals his involuntary civil commitment under the Baker Act. We affirm.

[1360]*1360Abdullah argues that he did not receive timely hearings. He was confined for examination pursuant to a court order on 2 December 1981. On 7 December, involuntary commitment proceedings were timely begun, Section 394.463(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1981). Formal service of the petition for commitment was accomplished on Ab-dullah on 15 December, and a timely hearing occurred the next day, Section 394.-467(3). There was no error.

Abdullah was capable of providing a reporter but did not and, therefore, waived his arguments on the sufficiency of the evidence. Cf. Shaman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1978).

Abdullah was not denied due process. His demand for a jury trial was properly denied, In re Jones, 339 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1976).

The appropriate medical findings were made, including a finding that Abdul-lah’s paranoid schizophrenia made him a threat to himself and others.

A well reasoned order was entered and it is AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI