Dale v. Florida Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dale v. Florida Department of Children and Families

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2025

Docket1D2024-1822

StatusPublished

This text of Dale v. Florida Department of Children and Families (Dale v. Florida Department of Children and Families) 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

Dale v. Florida Department of Children and Families, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2024-1822 _____________________________

CURTIS DALE JR.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jennifer J. Frydrychowicz, Judge.

July 9, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predators Act in October 2021. See § 394.917, Fla. Stat. (2021). In August 2023, Appellant filed a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. See Fla. R. Civ. P.–S.V.P. 4.460. The circuit court summarily denied the habeas petition without explanation.

“Habeas corpus proceedings brought under rule 4.460 are governed by Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.” Fla. R. Civ. P.–S.V.P. 4.440(a)(2). The circuit court did not provide a rationale for its ruling and did not attach records conclusively showing Appellant was entitled to no relief. If the denial was because the petition was legally insufficient, Appellant was entitled to amend the petition. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). If the denial was because the petition was conclusively resolved by the court record, the circuit court was required to attach “that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the [petitioner] is entitled to no relief.” See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5). Otherwise, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the allegations in his petition. See Thomason v. State, 389 So. 3d 782, 782–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings as required by rule 3.850.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Curtis Dale Jr., pro se, Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Andrew McGinley, General Counsel, Florida Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2024-1822 _____________________________

CURTIS DALE JR.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jennifer J. Frydrychowicz, Judge.

July 9, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predators Act in October 2021. See § 394.917, Fla. Stat. (2021). In August 2023, Appellant filed a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. See Fla. R. Civ. P.–S.V.P. 4.460. The circuit court summarily denied the habeas petition without explanation.

“Habeas corpus proceedings brought under rule 4.460 are governed by Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.” Fla. R. Civ. P.–S.V.P. 4.440(a)(2). The circuit court did not provide a rationale for its ruling and did not attach records conclusively showing Appellant was entitled to no relief. If the denial was because the petition was legally insufficient, Appellant was entitled to amend the petition. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). If the denial was because the petition was conclusively resolved by the court record, the circuit court was required to attach “that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the [petitioner] is entitled to no relief.” See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5). Otherwise, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the allegations in his petition. See Thomason v. State, 389 So. 3d 782, 782–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings as required by rule 3.850.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Curtis Dale Jr., pro se, Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Andrew McGinley, General Counsel, Florida Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dale v. Florida Department of Children and Families, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-v-florida-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2025.