Godfrey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Godfrey v. State

220 So. 3d 1273, 2017 WL 2704497

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D16-5714

StatusPublished

This text of 220 So. 3d 1273 (Godfrey 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

Godfrey v. State, 220 So. 3d 1273, 2017 WL 2704497 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order authorizing involuntary medical treatment is affirmed as the requirements of section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), were proved by competent, substantial evidence. We note that order is not moot despite the fact that the 90-day period of treatment mandated by the order has expired. See Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1992), and Hills v. State, 699 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order authorizing involuntary medical treatment is affirmed as the requirements of section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), were proved by competent, substantial evidence. We note that order is not moot despite the fact that the 90-day period of treatment mandated by the order has expired. See Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1992), and Hills v. State, 699 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 So. 3d 1273, 2017 WL 2704497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack