Garcia-Marrero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garcia-Marrero v. State

822 So. 2d 594, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11591, 2002 WL 1842892

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-851

StatusPublished

This text of 822 So. 2d 594 (Garcia-Marrero 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

Garcia-Marrero v. State, 822 So. 2d 594, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11591, 2002 WL 1842892 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Andres Garcia-Marrero (“appellant”) appeals a trial court order of commitment or re-commitment and retention of jurisdiction.- We reverse.

Appellant was found incompetent to stand trial for murder in March of 1984 and-was committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for placement in a secure forensic facility. Five years later, because appellant was still incompetent with no foreseeable return to competency, the charges against him were dismissed pursuant to Rule 8.213, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since the charges against him were dismissed, appellant has been re-committed three times for placement in a secure forensic facility (in 1989, 2000 and 2002).

As the State correctly concedes, once charges are dismissed based on continued incompetency, a trial court loses jurisdiction over the matter. See Amador v. State, 712 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Heidrick, 707 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Quiala v. State, 659 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Thereafter, the proper procedure for any attempts to commit would be to commence civil commitment proceedings.

Accordingly, because it exceeded its jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s order.

Reversed.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Andres Garcia-Marrero (“appellant”) appeals a trial court order of commitment or re-commitment and retention of jurisdiction.- We reverse.

Appellant was found incompetent to stand trial for murder in March of 1984 and-was committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for placement in a secure forensic facility. Five years later, because appellant was still incompetent with no foreseeable return to competency, the charges against him were dismissed pursuant to Rule 8.213, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since the charges against him were dismissed, appellant has been re-committed three times for placement in a secure forensic facility (in 1989, 2000 and 2002).

As the State correctly concedes, once charges are dismissed based on continued incompetency, a trial court loses jurisdiction over the matter. See Amador v. State, 712 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Heidrick, 707 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Quiala v. State, 659 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Thereafter, the proper procedure for any attempts to commit would be to commence civil commitment proceedings.

Accordingly, because it exceeded its jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s order.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

822 So. 2d 594, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11591, 2002 WL 1842892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-marrero-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack