Department of Children & Families v. Ewell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Children & Families v. Ewell

949 So. 2d 327, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612, 2007 WL 542999

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 5D06-3725

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 949 So. 2d 327 (Department of Children & Families v. Ewell) 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

Department of Children & Families v. Ewell, 949 So. 2d 327, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612, 2007 WL 542999 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, the Department of Children and Family Services, (“Department”), seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order committing Respondent, Shannon Edward Ewell, to the Florida [328]*328State Hospital for treatment to restore him to competency.¹ The only medical expert who evaluated Ewell opined that Ewell ydll not be able to reach competency through any known therapeutic program. Section 916.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), requires that before a defendant is committed to the Department for competency restoration, there must be “clear and convincing evidence that ... [t]here is a substantial probability that the mental illness causing the defendant’s incompetence will respond to treatment and the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Because there was no evidence presented below to support Ewell’s commitment pursuant to section 916.13(l)(c), we find the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering Ewell’s commitment for competency restoration. Eg., M.H. v. State, 901 So.2d 197, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (recognizing that “[wjhere competent, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding regarding competency or involuntary commitment, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law”). Therefore, we grant the petition, quash the order below, and remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED. SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAWSON, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, the Department of Children and Family Services, (“Department”), seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order committing Respondent, Shannon Edward Ewell, to the Florida [328]*328State Hospital for treatment to restore him to competency.¹ The only medical expert who evaluated Ewell opined that Ewell ydll not be able to reach competency through any known therapeutic program. Section 916.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), requires that before a defendant is committed to the Department for competency restoration, there must be “clear and convincing evidence that ... [t]here is a substantial probability that the mental illness causing the defendant’s incompetence will respond to treatment and the defendant will regain competency to proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Because there was no evidence presented below to support Ewell’s commitment pursuant to section 916.13(l)(c), we find the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering Ewell’s commitment for competency restoration. Eg., M.H. v. State, 901 So.2d 197, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (recognizing that “[wjhere competent, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding regarding competency or involuntary commitment, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law”). Therefore, we grant the petition, quash the order below, and remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED. SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAWSON, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

949 So. 2d 327, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612, 2007 WL 542999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-children-families-v-ewell-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack