04-0721 E.F. V. STATE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2004 » 04-0721 E.F. V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 04-0721 E.F. V. STATE

Case Date: 12/01/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 ** ** Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** Opinion filed December 1, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, D. Bruce Levy, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Michael E. Hantman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LEVY, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. E.F., circuit the respondent order in the circuit the and court, appeals the ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-1888 CASE NO. 3D04-721

E. F.,

court's

sustaining E.F.

general ordering

master's that

report be

involuntarily

committing

E.F.

transferred to a mental health facility.

Because we find that

the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that E.F.'s delusion poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his well-being or to the safety of others as required by the Corrections Mental Health Act for involuntary commitment, we reverse. E.F. is an inmate at the South Florida Reception Center. He was convicted of attempted sexual battery and sentenced to thirty years in prison in 1988. In 2003, the warden of the

South Florida Reception Center recommended that E.F. be admitted to the Department of Corrections Mental Health Institution for mental outlined health in care and treatment 945.40-49, pursuant Florida to the criteria (2003),

sections

Statutes

Florida's Corrections Mental Health Act. psychiatrists, Dr. Esteven

The opinions of two and Dr. Juan A.

Valdes-Castillo

Badia, supported the warden's recommendation. At the subsequent commitment hearing for E.F.'s involuntary placement, Dr. Valdes-Castillo testified on the State's behalf before the general master that E.F. was a schizophrenia type, and he was assigned to treat E.F. at the Department of

Corrections Stabilization Unit South Florida Reception Center. However, treatment. he was not treating E.F. because E.F. refused

He also was not prescribing any medications because

E.F. had verbally expressed his desire not to take medications.

2

On

direct

examination,

Dr.

Valdes-Castillo

testified,

in

pertinent part, as follows: Q. How has he been acting during the time he has been under your watchful eye? A. Okay. He is a rather passive individual. He stays by himself, talks very little. When you approach him he always says, "I am okay" and won't do any interaction. My observation, he carries on his own conversation actively obviously actively responding to internal stimuli. He laughs and talks by himself. Although when I ask him, "Are you hearing voices now," he says, "No." "Now, then who were you talking to?" He laughs and then avoids giving me any information about that. Q. How does he eat? A. He eats well. He sleeps well and there is no physical problems. Q. Do you believe there is a substantial likelihood in the future that he could inflict serious bodily harm on himself? A. I would say he wouldn't do it directly. He wouldn't hurt himself. He is a high risk and that is why I am bringing him. He has delusions that he is already a free man that is free to go home. He cannot realize why we are keeping him. It is like we are kidnapping him. I confront him and he says, "I am already a free man." I even brought one of our classification officers, which is a very nice lady Mrs. Roma. She confronted him and she tells him his time to leave prison was not until July of 2007. He got angry at her and she didn't know what she was talking about. My concern is that this man believes that he is a free man and one day will try to get out of the prison and will be shot, and they will do that. I have seen a few cases where they have tried to run out and they stop them with electrical fences. So he can be harmed not of his own desire

3

to harm opinion.

himself.

He

is

not

suicidal

in

my

Q. So you believe that acting on delusions could present a substantial likelihood in the future that he would inflict harm on others? A. No, he has toward anyone. Although Dr. not shown any violent that it behavior was "highly

Valdes-Castillo

testified

possible" that E.F. would try to walk out of prison, and that he could very well hit the electrical fence, the doctor admitted that E.F. had never tried to escape. The State argued that it had proven by clear and convincing evidence that E.F. met the criteria for involuntary treatment because he had a long mental history going back to 1988, he voluntarily stays to himself, he has conversations with himself in response to internal stimuli, he has delusions that he is a free man and he may then try to walk out of the prison one day and get shot or shocked by the electric fence. Thus, there was a substantial likelihood in the near future that he would inflict serious bodily harm on himself. The defense argued that the State failed to show that there was a real and present threat of substantial harm to E.F.'s well being or the safety of others. The defense contended that the

State was using the civil Baker Act criteria rather than the Corrections Mental Health criteria, which required the State to show the "mental illness poses a real and present threat of

4

substantial harm to the inmate's well being or to the safety of others." The general master involuntarily committed E.F., stating that if he did not, E.F. might try to escape. Thus, it was better to prevent E.F. from being shot or electrocuted if he tried to escape. The general master thereafter recommended that

E.F. be transferred to the Corrections Mental Health Facility. E.F. filed a written report taking exceptions to the general master's findings, claiming there was insufficient evidence that he stated he was leaving on a regular basis and that he had a long history of mental illness, and that he did not need care and treatment according to section 945.42(5). At the exceptions hearing before the circuit court judge, no new witnesses were called and no new evidence was presented. The trial court thereafter sustained the general master's report and overruled E.F.'s exceptions to the report, stating that the general master's findings of fact and conclusions of law were based on competent and substantial evidence. We hold that the State failed to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that his delusion that he is a free man posed a real and present threat of substantial harm to his wellbeing or to the safety of others as required by sections

945.42(5) and 945.43, Florida Statutes (2003), for involuntary commitment to a corrections mental health facility.

5

Section

945.43,

Florida

Statutes

(2003),

outlines

the

criteria under which an inmate at a correctional institution may be involuntarily transferred to a corrections mental health

facility for involuntary treatment. That section provides, in pertinent part: 945.43. Admission of inmate to mental health treatment facility. -(1) CRITERIA.-

Download 04-0721 E.F. V. STATE.pdf