In Re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators

13 So. 3d 1025, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 405, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1020, 2009 WL 1956384
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 9, 2009
DocketSC08-998
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 13 So. 3d 1025 (In Re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators, 13 So. 3d 1025, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 405, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1020, 2009 WL 1956384 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

LABARGA, J.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of a proposal by the Florida Supreme Court Criminal Court Steering Committee (Committee) to adopt the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators. The new rules are to be used specifically in proceedings brought under Chapter 394, Part V, Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators, Florida Statutes. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

In Chapter 98-64, Laws of Florida, the Legislature created “The Jimmy Ryce Involuntary Civil Commitment for Sexually Violent Predators’ Treatment and Care Act” (Act). 1 The Act provides for “the involuntary commitment of persons who are convicted of sexual offenses and found to be ‘sexually violent predators.’ ” West-erheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93, 97 (Fla. 2002). A “sexually violent predator,” as defined under the Act, is one who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined by section 394.912(9), Florida Statutes (2008), and who is likely to reoffend due to “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder.” § 394.912(10), Fla. Stat.

The Court requested that the Committee create a comprehensive set of proposed rules to be used in commitment proceedings brought under the Act. The proposals for use in civil commitment proceedings under Chapter 394, Part V, submitted by the Committee on May 28, 2008, were drafted using the existing rules of civil procedure as a model. The proposed rules include the following: 4.010-Seope and Title of Rules; 4.030-Nonverification of Pleadings; 4.040-Parties; 4.050-Com-mencement of Action/Responsibility of Clerk to Notify Presiding Court/Probable Cause Finding; 4.060-Venue and Transfers of Actions; 4.070-Process; 4.080-Ser-vice of Pleadings and Papers; 4.090-Time; 4.100-Pleadings and Motions; 4.110-Mo-tions; 4.200-Appointment of Counsel; 4.220-Adversarial Probable Cause Hearing; 4.240-Trial Proceedings After Finding of Probable Cause; 5 Day Status Hearing; Determination of Counsel for the Respondent; Waiver of Time Limitations; 4.260-Continuance of Trial; 4.280-General *1026 Provisions Governing Discovery; 4.310-Depositions upon Oral Examination; 4.330-Use of Deposition in Court Proceedings; 4.360-Examination of the Respondent; 4.380-Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions; 4.390-Depositions of Expert Witnesses; 4.410-Subpoena; 4.430-De-mand for Jury Trial; Waiver; 4.431-Trial by Jury; 4.440-Rules of Procedure and Evidence; 4.450-Appeal; 4.460-Post Judgment Habeas Corpus; and 4.470-Post Commitment Proceedings.

The Court adopts the aforementioned rules as proposed except for rules 4.220, 4.260, 4.310, 4.380, 4.410, and 4.460, which are adopted with modification as discussed below, and declines to adopt rules 4.050 and 4.360.

Rule 4.220, Adversarial Probable Cause Hearing, derives from section 394.915(2), Florida Statutes (2008), and sets forth various rights held by the respondent. If the State fails to establish probable cause at the adversarial hearing to believe that the respondent is a sexually violent predator, the court shall release the respondent from custody. The Court modifies the Committee’s proposal to include the requirement that, in addition to releasing the respondent upon a finding that the State failed to meet its burden, the court also enter an order of no probable cause.

As adopted, rule 4.260, Continuance of Trial, tracks the language of section 394.916(2), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides that

[t]he trial may be continued once upon the request of either party for not more than 120 days upon a showing of good cause, or by the court on its own motion in the interests of justice, when the person will not be substantially prejudiced. No additional continuances may be granted unless the court finds that a manifest injustice would otherwise occur.

The Court declines to dispense with the 120-day presumptive maximum length for a continuance, as proposed.

Rule 4.310, Depositions Upon Oral Examination, tracks rule 1.310. The Committee anticipated by its proposal under rule 4.310(c) that depositions may be taken by telephone:

The officer before whom the deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by someone acting under the officer’s direction, and in the officer’s presence, record the testimony of the witness, except that when a deposition is taken by telephone, the witness shall be sworn by a person present with the witness who is qualified to administer the oath in that location.

The Court therefore modifies rule 4.310(b)(4) to explicitly permit telephone depositions.

Rule 4.38Q, Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions, is modeled after rule 1.380. In adopting rule 4.380, the Court clarifies that if the deponent is a party, failure to be sworn or to answer a question after being directed to do so by the court constitutes a basis for the court to enter an order against the “disobedient party.”

In proposing rule 4.410, Subpoena, the Committee opined that subpoenaing of minors does not apply under the Act. There may be circumstances, however, where a child victim could still be a minor at the time of commencement of the civil commitment proceedings. The Court therefore modifies the Committee’s proposal to include the language of rule 1.410(h), Subpoena of Minor.

Rule 4.460 sets forth the procedure for a respondent under the Act to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the civil commitment proceedings. The rule expressly provides that the habeas petition be filed in the county in which the respon *1027 dent was adjudged a sexually violent predator subject to chapter 394. By its terms, the rule does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings brought under section 394.9215, Florida Statutes (2008). 2 Rule 4.460 is modified to allow a two-year period for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Finally, the Court declines to adopt rules 4.050, Commencement of Action/Responsibility of Clerk to Notify Presiding Court/Probable Cause Finding, and 4.360, Examination of the Respondent.

Under proposed rule 4.050, Commencement of Action/Responsibility of Clerk to Notify Presiding Court/Probable Cause Finding, any action brought under the rules for the involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators would be deemed commenced when the state attorney files a petition on behalf of the State setting forth a cause of action alleging that the respondent is in total confinement and is a sexually violent predator and stating sufficient facts to support the allegations. In addition, the respondent would be transferred to a secure facility if his or her sentence expires during the time that a petition is pending until resolution of the petition. Finally, the Committee’s proposal would have included a ten-day cure period, giving the state attorney, if a petition is denied as insufficient on its face, an opportunity to amend the petition within ten days from the date of denial. The issue of whether a respondent must be in total confinement when the petition is filed presents a substantive issue that the Court has not conclusively decided, and we decline to do so absent an actual case or controversy.

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

Related

Aaron Shaw v. the State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
James v. Harris
S.D. Florida, 2022
Abaunza v. State
180 So. 3d 1201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Anderson v. State
93 So. 3d 1201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Morel v. Wilkins
84 So. 3d 226 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Boatman v. State
77 So. 3d 1242 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
In Re Commitment of Richards
62 So. 3d 1263 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Tedesco v. State
62 So. 3d 1252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Finfrock v. Florida Civil Commitment Center
28 So. 3d 983 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Cobb v. State
16 So. 3d 273 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 So. 3d 1025, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 405, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1020, 2009 WL 1956384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure-for-involuntary-commitment-of-fla-2009.