 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Palm Beach County Sheriff v. State9/17/2003
The issue in this case is whether a sheriff is entitled to bring a writ of mandamus to recover expenses from the Department of Children and Families (the Department) when that agency fails to place or take custody of an incarcerated, incompetent criminal defendant after the fifteen-day period described in section 916.107(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). We hold that mandamus will not support the recovery of such expenses and affirm.
This case began with five criminal defendants determined to be incompetent to proceed, either because of mental retardation, pursuant to sections 916.106(12) and 916.302, Florida Statutes (2001), or mental illness pursuant to sections 916.106(11) and 916.12, Florida Statutes (2001). The trial court committed all five defendants to the Department for placement in a treatment facility.
On March 19, 2001, the five defendants separately filed emergency petitions for writs of habeas corpus seeking release from the Palm Beach County Jail on the ground that each was being illegally detained, because the Department had failed to take custody of them within fifteen days of commitment as mandated by section 916.107(1)(a). Alternatively, each defendant asked the trial court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to secure their placement in a treatment facility.
The Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Ed Bieluch, responded to the petitions, arguing that his office should not bear any financial responsibility for housing or caring for the defendants after the expiration of the fifteen-day period. The Sheriff cross-petitioned against the Department for a writ of mandamus (1) requiring the Department to immediately assume care of the defendants, (2) awarding attorney's fees and costs under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001), and (3) forcing the Department to reimburse the Sheriff for all monies expended on housing and caring for the defendants, from the expiration of the fifteen-day period until their removal by the Department.
On March 28, 2001, the trial court conducted a consolidated evidentiary hearing on the defendants' petitions. The Department presented evidence demonstrating that it did not have the available bed space to house either the mentally retarded or the mentally ill defendants, largely due to the lack of funding by the legislature. The Sheriff argued that the Department had failed to request additional funding for more bed space; that it had enough space to add beds; and that the Department was well aware of its statutory duty to add additional beds.
On March 30, 2001, the trial court denied the defendants' petitions for writs of habeas corpus and granted their request for a writ of mandamus against the Department. Relying on Miller v. Carson, 524 F. Supp. 1174 (M.D. Fla. 1981), and Pierce County Office of Involuntary Commitment v. Western State Hospital, 644 P.2d 131 (Wash. 1982), the trial court concluded that the lack of bed space did not justify the Department's refusal to take custody of the defendants.
The trial court rejected the Department's argument that it could not comply with such an order. The court concluded that it was possible to expand bed space; that the Department had chosen not to budget funds to build room for bed expansion; that the Department had not exhausted its mental health budget for the fiscal year; that the Department was able to seek emergency funding; and that the Department had shown only that it was inconvenient or impractical for it to assume custody of the defendants.
Thus, the Department was ordered to immediately advise the Sheriff's Office where to deliver the defendants, and that if the Department failed to do so, the Sheriff's Office would
Page 1 2 3 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|