McCray v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Spuhler

    243 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Denying State's certiorari petition to require imposition of conditional release and holding that "[i]t is within the trial court's discretion" to impose conditions under rule 3.212(d)

    "[C]ertiorari review is proper when it is alleged that the circuit court's interpretation of a statute violates clearly established law or when it fails to follow the dictates of a statute[ ] and the error is sufficiently egregious as to result in a miscarriage of justice." McCray v. State, 230 So.3d 495, 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting In re Asbestos Litig., 933 So.2d 613, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ); see also Abreu–Gutierrez v. James, 1 So.3d 262, 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (explaining that the proper method to challenge a nonfinal commitment order is by certiorari).In its motion, the State sought imposition of release conditions pursuant to rule 3.212(d), which provides:

  2. Broxterman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

    8:20-cv-2940-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2023)

    Under Florida law, “[t]he law of the case doctrine requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.” McCray v. State, 230 So.3d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (emphasis added). “The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided in a prior appeal involving the same case.

  3. Chipman v. State

    310 So. 3d 472 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)

    Chipman's claim regarding the trial court's February 16, 2018, order is barred by the law of the case doctrine because this court has already affirmed it on appeal. See Chipman v. State, 269 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ; see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Howard, 286 So. 3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that a per curiam affirmance established law of the case); McCray v. State, 230 So. 3d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("The law of the case doctrine requires 'that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.' " (quoting Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) )); RTM Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. G/W Riverwalk, LLC, 893 So. 2d 583, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Canady, J., concurring) (explaining that even though a previous appellate decision in the case "was a per curiam affirmance without opinion," it established the law of the case on the matter in question).

  4. Schofield v. Judd

    268 So. 3d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    Stating that "any subsequent panel decision issued from our court that conflicts with our court's prior holding" on a point of law "cannot be considered binding"

    1263 ; Oren, 940 So.2d at 1274 ; Mosher, 876 So.2d at 1232 ).Since then, the implicit reformulation of Jackson's holding has been carried along in Florida law, intermittently and in differing variations, when an incompetent defendant who is ineligible for commitment under section 916.13 challenges his or her continued commitment. Compare Martire v. Gualtieri, 244 So.3d 233, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("Should the trial court find that there is not a substantial probability that the petitioner will attain competency in the foreseeable future, the trial court shall release the petitioner under appropriate conditions pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212(d) if the State does not initiate involuntary civil commitment proceedings."); State v. Spuhler, 243 So.3d 1029, 1031-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (denying State's certiorari petition to require imposition of conditional release and holding that "[i]t is within the trial court's discretion" to impose conditions under rule 3.212(d) ); McCray v. State, 230 So.3d 495, 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("In Mr. McCray's situation, ‘[t]he proper course when an incompetent defendant does not meet the criteria for commitment, and cannot be restored to competency, is for the State to initiate civil commitment proceedings under the Baker Act or for the court to release the defendant on appropriate conditions as provided in Rule 3.212(d).’ " (quoting Amaya, 10 So.3d at 157 ) ); and Barnett, 124 So.3d at 433 ("If the court orders release, it should consider whether appropriate conditions may again be lawfully imposed under rule 3.212(d).") with Williams v. State, 256 So.3d 954, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("At a hearing, the State's evidence demonstrated that [Petitioner's] disorder would never improve and he would never attain competency.