Washington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Washington v. State

866 So. 2d 725, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 206, 2004 WL 57286

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 14, 2004

DocketNo. 3D02-354

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 866 So. 2d 725 (Washington 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

Washington v. State, 866 So. 2d 725, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 206, 2004 WL 57286 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, Isaac Washington, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the State’s petition for civil commitment. We affirm.

In his motion to dismiss the petition for civil commitment, the respondent argued that he had failed to receive nineteen days credit for time served and that as a result, he was illegally detained when the State filed its petition for civil commitment. He arg-ued that such illegal detention required dismissal of the petition. We find that the commitment court properly denied the motion to dismiss because it had no power within the commitment proceedings to consider the alleged illegality of his sentence in the criminal proceedings. State v. Rompre, 837 So.2d 453, 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). More importantly, the respondent has failed to show that his detention prejudiced his ability to defend against the commitment. Tanguay v. State, 782 So.2d 419, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review granted, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002).

Affirmed.

GODERICH and FLETCHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, Isaac Washington, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the State’s petition for civil commitment. We affirm.

In his motion to dismiss the petition for civil commitment, the respondent argued that he had failed to receive nineteen days credit for time served and that as a result, he was illegally detained when the State filed its petition for civil commitment. He arg-ued that such illegal detention required dismissal of the petition. We find that the commitment court properly denied the motion to dismiss because it had no power within the commitment proceedings to consider the alleged illegality of his sentence in the criminal proceedings. State v. Rompre, 837 So.2d 453, 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). More importantly, the respondent has failed to show that his detention prejudiced his ability to defend against the commitment. Tanguay v. State, 782 So.2d 419, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review granted, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002).

Affirmed.

GODERICH and FLETCHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 So. 2d 725, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 206, 2004 WL 57286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack