State ex rel. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State ex rel. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe

291 So. 2d 108, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1974

DocketNo. 74-24

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 291 So. 2d 108 (State ex rel. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe) 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

State ex rel. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe, 291 So. 2d 108, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

REVISED OPINION

CARROLL, Judge.

In this original proceeding in prohibition we issued a rule nisi. The respondent filed a response incorporating a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied, and we hold the response fails to show good cause why prohibition should not issue.

In the order of the trial court committing a defendant in a criminal case to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, South Florida State Hospital, for treatment and rehabilitation, the court undertook to direct the state agency as to the manner of its treatment of the defendant, including direction as to the drugs to be administered or not administered, and fixing a period for which the directed treatment must extend.

The order committing the criminal defendant to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was within the province of the court, under Rule 3.210(a) (3) CrPR, 33 F.S.A. However, by including in the order the above described mandatory directions to the state agency as to the method and duration of the treatment, the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction; first, because the state agency had not been brought into the case by proper process, and had not been furnished with notice and an opportunity to be heard thereon. See State ex rel. O’Dare v. Kehoe, Fla.App., 189 So.2d 268. Secondly, such directions to the state agency purporting to designate and control the type and duration of treatment of the person committed, amounted to usurping the jurisdiction of the state agency to determine those matters, as it is authorized to do by law (§ 394.459 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). See Dade County v. Baker, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 545. To thus invade the functions of the state agency as a division of the executive department is in derogation of the doctrine of the separation of powers of the state government.

The rule nisi in prohibition is made absolute, and thereby the respondent is restrained from enforcing the provisions of the order relating to the manner and duration of treatment of the defendant committed to the said state agency.

It is so ordered.

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

REVISED OPINION

CARROLL, Judge.

In this original proceeding in prohibition we issued a rule nisi. The respondent filed a response incorporating a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied, and we hold the response fails to show good cause why prohibition should not issue.

In the order of the trial court committing a defendant in a criminal case to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, South Florida State Hospital, for treatment and rehabilitation, the court undertook to direct the state agency as to the manner of its treatment of the defendant, including direction as to the drugs to be administered or not administered, and fixing a period for which the directed treatment must extend.

The order committing the criminal defendant to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was within the province of the court, under Rule 3.210(a) (3) CrPR, 33 F.S.A. However, by including in the order the above described mandatory directions to the state agency as to the method and duration of the treatment, the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction; first, because the state agency had not been brought into the case by proper process, and had not been furnished with notice and an opportunity to be heard thereon. See State ex rel. O’Dare v. Kehoe, Fla.App., 189 So.2d 268. Secondly, such directions to the state agency purporting to designate and control the type and duration of treatment of the person committed, amounted to usurping the jurisdiction of the state agency to determine those matters, as it is authorized to do by law (§ 394.459 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). See Dade County v. Baker, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 545. To thus invade the functions of the state agency as a division of the executive department is in derogation of the doctrine of the separation of powers of the state government.

The rule nisi in prohibition is made absolute, and thereby the respondent is restrained from enforcing the provisions of the order relating to the manner and duration of treatment of the defendant committed to the said state agency.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 So. 2d 108, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-v-sepe-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack