Tiburcio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tiburcio v. State

95 So. 3d 1037, 2012 WL 3758658, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-2296

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 So. 3d 1037 (Tiburcio 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

Tiburcio v. State, 95 So. 3d 1037, 2012 WL 3758658, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks release from the Florida State Hospital because he is incompetent to proceed on his criminal charges and cannot be restored to competency in the foreseeable future. Petitioner also seeks dismissal of the pending charges. The State concedes that Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful, but argues that the dismissal of the charges is premature because five years have not elapsed since Petitioner was found incompetent. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.213(a)(1). We agree with the State on both issues.

Accordingly, we grant the Petition in part and deny it in part. We direct the trial court to order Petitioner’s release. Although the State has indicated that it does not intend to seek civil commitment at this time, this decision is without prejudice to the State instituting civil commitment proceedings.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

ORFINGER, C.J., TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks release from the Florida State Hospital because he is incompetent to proceed on his criminal charges and cannot be restored to competency in the foreseeable future. Petitioner also seeks dismissal of the pending charges. The State concedes that Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful, but argues that the dismissal of the charges is premature because five years have not elapsed since Petitioner was found incompetent. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.213(a)(1). We agree with the State on both issues.

Accordingly, we grant the Petition in part and deny it in part. We direct the trial court to order Petitioner’s release. Although the State has indicated that it does not intend to seek civil commitment at this time, this decision is without prejudice to the State instituting civil commitment proceedings.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

ORFINGER, C.J., TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 3d 1037, 2012 WL 3758658, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiburcio-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack