Amendments to 916.16

1. Wardell v. State

   944 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 2 times

   While we agree the state failed to comply with section 916.16(1), we reject appellant's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of the court to hear the class of cases to which the particular controversy belongs. Dep't of Revenue v. Pelsey, 779 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We find section 916.16(1) did not divest the trial court of its authority to preside over a felony case arising in St. Johns County. The statute does not expressly state the committing court's jurisdiction over a defendant found incompetent to proceed is exclusive. In Florida, circuit courts are tribunals of plenary jurisdiction having authority over any matter not expressly denied them by the Constitution or applicable statutes. Dep't of Rev. v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1994). Furthermore, the manner by which a criminal defendant is brought before a court, even if improper, does not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Remeta v. Bugger, 622 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1993); Jones v. State, 386 So.2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Hunter v. State, 174 So.2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).

   PAGE 1091
2. Furqan v. State

   136 So. 3d 636 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

   916.16 Jurisdiction of committing court.—

   PAGE 638
3. State v. Heidrick

   707 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

   • Motion to dismiss

   As stated above, under the circumstances of the instant case, the discharge provision of section 916.16 is inapplicable. However, even if applicable, this Court's holding would be the same. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision inJackson, the Florida Supreme Court had the opportunity to address a similar issue in Trippodo v. Rogers, 54 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1951), and Jones v. O'Connor, 185 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1966). In Trippodo and Jones, the trial courts found that the defendants were insane and incapable of standing trial. The defendants were committed to a Florida state hospital and the commitment orders also provided that the defendants could not be released without the trial courts' consent. Moreover, at the time that the trial courts entered the commitment orders, section 917.01(2), Florida Statutes, which is the predecessor statute to section 916.16, was in effect. Section 917.01(2) provided, in part, as follows: "No defendant committed by a court to an institution, by reason of the examination referred to in this paragraph, shall be released therefrom, without the consent of the court committing him." Thereafter, the charges against the defendants were nolle…

   PAGE 1168
4. Linn v. State (In re Linn)

   79 So. 3d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times

   • Motion to dismiss

   Second, the State argues that under section 916.16, Florida Statutes (2009), only the criminal court has jurisdiction over this commitment. That section states, in part:

   PAGE 786
5. Jones v. Morgan

   Case No.: 1:15cv281/MMP/EMT (N.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2016)

   • Motion to dismiss

   Florida Statutes § 916.106(7) provides that DCF "is responsible for the treatment of forensic clients who have been . . . acquitted of a felony by reason of insanity." Fla Stat. § 916.106(7). Section 916.15 sets forth the process for the commitment of a defendant acquitted of criminal charges by reason of insanity. See Fla. Stat. § 916.15(2), (3). Section 916.16 provides the trial court with continuing jurisdiction over an involuntarily committed defendant. See Fla. Stat. § 916.16.

   PAGE 4
6. In re Involuntary Plac. of Linn

   Case No. 2D09-5181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2011)

   • Motion to dismiss

   Second, the State argues that under section 916.16, Florida Statutes (2009), only the criminal court has jurisdiction over this commitment. That section states, in part:

   PAGE 6
7. Morrow v. State

   153 So. 3d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

   Section 916.16 provides the trial court with continuing jurisdiction over a defendant it either involuntarily commits or places on conditional release pursuant to section 916.17. Section 916.17 mandates:

   PAGE 403
8. Wardell v. Sec'y

   Case No.: 3:12-cv-689-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla. Sep. 29, 2015)

   3 more...

   While we agree the state failed to comply with section 916.16(1), we reject appellant's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of the court to hear the class of cases to which the particular controversy belongs. Dep't of Revenue v. Pelsey, 779 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We find section 916.16(1) did not divest the trial court of its authority to preside over a felony case arising in St. Johns County. The statute does not

   PAGE 25
9. Department of Children v. Harter

   861 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 14 times

   This statute gives the Department, not the committing court, authority to place and treat a defendant committed to its custody. See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.218(a). The court determines whether the defendant should be involuntarily committed, and retains jurisdiction to determine whether a committed defendant should continue to be hospitalized or released from commitment. See §§ 916.15(1) and 916.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.217(b) and 3.218(b). The court, however, may not direct that a defendant be placed in a particular facility or receive a specialized treatment.

   PAGE 1275
10. Gerus v. State

    565 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 1 times

    Appellant seeks review of an order entered in the circuit court for Columbia County by which appellant's involuntary hospitalization was continued under section 916.16, Florida Statutes. We reverse, concluding that on the record before us the court lacked jurisdiction to enter that order.