Rowles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rowles v. State

11 So. 3d 460, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9465, 2009 WL 1703233

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 2009

Docket5D06-2622

StatusPublished

This text of 11 So. 3d 460 (Rowles 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

Rowles v. State, 11 So. 3d 460, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9465, 2009 WL 1703233 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

We have this appeal after remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the high Court’s decision in Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101 (Fla.2008). We have previously withdrawn our prior decision and mandate. After remand, we instructed the parties to advise the court of their position concerning the *461 proper disposition of the appeal in light of Larimore. The State properly has responded that, in light of Larimore, the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the State’s Petition for Civil Commitment of Appellant. Accordingly, the “Order Finding Respondent Sexual Predator” and the “Order Committing Respondent to the Custody of the Department of Children and Families” [“DCF”] are reversed and the case is remanded with instructions that the lower court dismiss the civil commitment petition and that Robert Lee Rowles be promptly released from the custody of DCF.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

We have this appeal after remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the high Court’s decision in Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101 (Fla.2008). We have previously withdrawn our prior decision and mandate. After remand, we instructed the parties to advise the court of their position concerning the *461 proper disposition of the appeal in light of Larimore. The State properly has responded that, in light of Larimore, the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the State’s Petition for Civil Commitment of Appellant. Accordingly, the “Order Finding Respondent Sexual Predator” and the “Order Committing Respondent to the Custody of the Department of Children and Families” [“DCF”] are reversed and the case is remanded with instructions that the lower court dismiss the civil commitment petition and that Robert Lee Rowles be promptly released from the custody of DCF.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 3d 460, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9465, 2009 WL 1703233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowles-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack