India Comer and Shantearia Gaines v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 23, 2025
Docket3D2025-1258
StatusPublished

This text of India Comer and Shantearia Gaines v. State of Florida (India Comer and Shantearia Gaines v. State of Florida) 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
India Comer and Shantearia Gaines v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D25-1258 Lower Tribunal Nos. F25-2125C, F25-459 ________________

India Comer and Shantearia Gaines, Petitioners,

vs.

State of Florida, et al., Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for petitioners.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent the State of Florida.

Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Shanika A. Graves, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent Miami-Dade County.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS, and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.

India Comer and Shantearia Gaines, two female minors charged as

adults, have petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition

challenges the legality of their detention at an adult jail. Specifically, they

allege that the location and manner in which the minors are housed in the

adult jail facility fails to comply with, and violates the requirements of, section

985.265(5), Florida Statutes. But Miami-Dade County has filed a response

contesting some of the factual allegations and making additional factual

allegations. As a result, there appears to be a good faith dispute regarding

certain material facts which must be resolved for this petition to proceed.

Because Miami-Dade County has disputed Comer’s and Gaines’

claims, we appoint the Honorable Christine Hernandez——the trial judge

who presided on Gaines’ case below—to serve as a commissioner, hold an

evidentiary hearing to take such testimony and receive such evidence as

may be deemed proper or necessary to resolve any material factual dispute.

Thereafter, Judge Hernandez shall submit a report and recommendation to

this Court. In light of this, we hold the petition in abeyance for a period of

thirty days from the date of this order. See Parrish v. State, 201 So. 3d 145,

146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Commissioner appointed; petition held in abeyance.

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

Related

Parrish v. State
201 So. 3d 145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
India Comer and Shantearia Gaines v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/india-comer-and-shantearia-gaines-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2025.