State v. Commitment of Strouse

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Commitment of Strouse

888 So. 2d 92, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17759, 2004 WL 2726071

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 23, 2004·No. No. 1D04-0327·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order dismissing its petition for civil commitment of Rick L. Strouse, appellee, as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, chapter 394, part V, Florida Statutes (2001). In dismissing the petition, the trial court ruled that, because appellee had completed his sentence for the sexually violent offense and had not been serving a sentence for a sexually violent offense at the time the petition was filed, the Jimmy Ryce Act did not authorize proceedings against him. This court has recently addressed the issue raised here in State v. Sawyer, 870 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) and State v. Mitchell, 866 So.2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). We reverse on the authority of Mitchell and Saivyer. As we did in Mitchell and Sawyer, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE [JIMMY] RYCE ACT REQUIRE THAT THE CURRENT INCARCERATION BE FOR A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE?

WOLF, C.J., BENTON AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order dismissing its petition for civil commitment of Rick L. Strouse, appellee, as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, chapter 394, part V, Florida Statutes (2001). In dismissing the petition, the trial court ruled that, because appellee had completed his sentence for the sexually violent offense and had not been serving a sentence for a sexually violent offense at the time the petition was filed, the Jimmy Ryce Act did not authorize proceedings against him. This court has recently addressed the issue raised here in State v. Sawyer, 870 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) and State v. Mitchell, 866 So.2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). We reverse on the authority of Mitchell and Saivyer. As we did in Mitchell and Sawyer, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE [JIMMY] RYCE ACT REQUIRE THAT THE CURRENT INCARCERATION BE FOR A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE?

WOLF, C.J., BENTON AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

State v. Commitment of Strouse, 888 So. 2d 92, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17759, 2004 WL 2726071 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

888 So. 2d 92 (State v. Commitment of Strouse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related