C.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.W. v. State

214 So. 3d 796, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5103

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2017

DocketCase No. 5D17-1023

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 So. 3d 796 (C.W. 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

C.W. v. State, 214 So. 3d 796, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5103 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

C.W. petitions for a writ of habeas corpus for his release from his involuntary confinement at the Halifax Health Medical Center (“Medical Center”) in Daytona Beach, Florida. C.W. was admitted to the Medical Center for involuntary examination under the Baker Act¹ on February 11, 2017. At a hearing held on February 17, 2017, the circuit court determined that C.W. met the criteria for involuntary commitment and issued an order for involuntary inpatient placement at the Medical Center under section 894.467(1), Florida Statutes (2016).

On March 28, 2017, Appellant petitioned the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus.² The circuit court held a hearing on the petition on March 80, 2017. The circuit court heard testimony from C.W.’s doctor, Dr. Chaiffetz, that C.W. would benefit from “extended stabilization” and that there was a risk of “decompensation” without the structured environment of the Medical Center. Dr. Chaiffetz noted that C.W. had been released previously only to relapse and be readmitted a short time later. The circuit court denied the petition stating that it believed involuntary placement in the Medical Center was “a lifeboat” for C.W. The circuit court explained that C.W. needed to “stay in this lifeboat a little bit longer” and that the court was “trying desperately to get [C.W.] to do that.”

C.W. contends that he is entitled to immediate release because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to himself or others. The State properly concedes error and agrees that the writ of habeas corpus should be granted. Accordingly, we grant C.W.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order his immediate release. See § 394.467(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016); In re Lehrke, 12 So.3d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Blue v. State, 764 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)). No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

C.W. petitions for a writ of habeas corpus for his release from his involuntary confinement at the Halifax Health Medical Center (“Medical Center”) in Daytona Beach, Florida. C.W. was admitted to the Medical Center for involuntary examination under the Baker Act¹ on February 11, 2017. At a hearing held on February 17, 2017, the circuit court determined that C.W. met the criteria for involuntary commitment and issued an order for involuntary inpatient placement at the Medical Center under section 894.467(1), Florida Statutes (2016).

On March 28, 2017, Appellant petitioned the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus.² The circuit court held a hearing on the petition on March 80, 2017. The circuit court heard testimony from C.W.’s doctor, Dr. Chaiffetz, that C.W. would benefit from “extended stabilization” and that there was a risk of “decompensation” without the structured environment of the Medical Center. Dr. Chaiffetz noted that C.W. had been released previously only to relapse and be readmitted a short time later. The circuit court denied the petition stating that it believed involuntary placement in the Medical Center was “a lifeboat” for C.W. The circuit court explained that C.W. needed to “stay in this lifeboat a little bit longer” and that the court was “trying desperately to get [C.W.] to do that.”

C.W. contends that he is entitled to immediate release because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to himself or others. The State properly concedes error and agrees that the writ of habeas corpus should be granted. Accordingly, we grant C.W.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order his immediate release. See § 394.467(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016); In re Lehrke, 12 So.3d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Blue v. State, 764 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)). No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 3d 796, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cw-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack