Bryant v. State

503 So. 2d 361, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 470, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11925
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bryant v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 546 So. 2d 762
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 10, 1987·No. No. BN-195·Published

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

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

503 So. 2d 361 (Bryant v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)