Bryant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bryant v. State

503 So. 2d 361, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 470, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11925

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1987

DocketNo. BN-195

StatusPublished

This text of 503 So. 2d 361 (Bryant 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

Bryant v. State, 503 So. 2d 361, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 470, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11925 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the alleged continuous assignment of a county judge, the Honorable Judge Richard L. Hood, acting as circuit court judge, to preside over Chapter 394 (Baker Act) proceedings. Appellants assert that Judge Hood’s continuous assignment as acting circuit court judge is improper and therefore he lacks subject matter jurisdiction to preside over their Baker Act proceedings. We have no authority to act without a factual basis for these allegations in the record. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). We therefore affirm appellants’ commitment orders, but this is without prejudice to appellants should they seek to challenge subject matter jurisdic[362]*362tion through a habeas corpus proceeding in the circuit court.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the alleged continuous assignment of a county judge, the Honorable Judge Richard L. Hood, acting as circuit court judge, to preside over Chapter 394 (Baker Act) proceedings. Appellants assert that Judge Hood’s continuous assignment as acting circuit court judge is improper and therefore he lacks subject matter jurisdiction to preside over their Baker Act proceedings. We have no authority to act without a factual basis for these allegations in the record. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). We therefore affirm appellants’ commitment orders, but this is without prejudice to appellants should they seek to challenge subject matter jurisdic[362]*362tion through a habeas corpus proceeding in the circuit court.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 So. 2d 361, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 470, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack