M.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.B. v. State

603 So. 2d 710, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9122, 1992 WL 201977

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1992

DocketNo. 91-02729

StatusPublished

This text of 603 So. 2d 710 (M.B. 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

M.B. v. State, 603 So. 2d 710, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9122, 1992 WL 201977 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

M.B. appeals an order of involuntary placement in a state mental health treatment facility. We dismiss the appeal as moot. M.B. is no longer committed under this order. From the record, it appears without dispute that M.B. is an indigent “whose only sources of income are from state and federal aid.” § 402.33(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (1991). Thus, the state is not authorized to collect fees or file a lien against any assets of M.B. Under the standards announced in Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992), this appeal is moot because M.B. has been released from the state treatment facility and it is conceded that M.B. will not suffer any collateral legal consequences as a result of the involuntary placement.

If this appeal were not moot, we would have considerable difficulty determining whether there was sufficient evi[711]*711dence to permit the placement of M.B. in a state mental health treatment facility. We recognize that hearings on involuntary placement are frequently conducted on an emergency basis under less than ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, it is imperative for the state and the circuit court to ensure that an adequate record exists to allow review of an order that involuntarily confines a person. See Shuman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1978). This hearing was conducted without a court reporter. The transcript, apparently obtained from a tape recording, does not reflect that any witness was sworn. See § 90.605, Fla.Stat. (1991). Essential testimony was received from two witnesses, one of whom is identified as “Doctor,” and the other, as “Unidentified.” We would encourage the state and the circuit court to consider steps that would avoid these serious problems in future involuntary placement proceedings.

Appeal dismissed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

M.B. appeals an order of involuntary placement in a state mental health treatment facility. We dismiss the appeal as moot. M.B. is no longer committed under this order. From the record, it appears without dispute that M.B. is an indigent “whose only sources of income are from state and federal aid.” § 402.33(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (1991). Thus, the state is not authorized to collect fees or file a lien against any assets of M.B. Under the standards announced in Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992), this appeal is moot because M.B. has been released from the state treatment facility and it is conceded that M.B. will not suffer any collateral legal consequences as a result of the involuntary placement.

If this appeal were not moot, we would have considerable difficulty determining whether there was sufficient evi[711]*711dence to permit the placement of M.B. in a state mental health treatment facility. We recognize that hearings on involuntary placement are frequently conducted on an emergency basis under less than ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, it is imperative for the state and the circuit court to ensure that an adequate record exists to allow review of an order that involuntarily confines a person. See Shuman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1978). This hearing was conducted without a court reporter. The transcript, apparently obtained from a tape recording, does not reflect that any witness was sworn. See § 90.605, Fla.Stat. (1991). Essential testimony was received from two witnesses, one of whom is identified as “Doctor,” and the other, as “Unidentified.” We would encourage the state and the circuit court to consider steps that would avoid these serious problems in future involuntary placement proceedings.

Appeal dismissed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 So. 2d 710, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9122, 1992 WL 201977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mb-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack