M.A. v. State of Florida and Ric Bradshaw, etc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2007
M.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA and
RIC BRADSHAW, Sheriff Palm Beach County,
Respondents.
No. 4D07-2888
[September 19, 2007]
CORRECTED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
We thank defense counsel for his notice of factual errors, grant the
trial court’s request for a corrected opinion, withdraw the previous
opinion and substitute this corrected opinion.
M.A. petitions for a writ of habeas corpus regarding his adjudication
for indirect contempt of court. He asks us to quash an order of home
detention requiring him to wear an electronic monitor. We grant the
petition.
He was on probation when he was found guilty of loitering and
prowling with disposition set to follow. Before the disposition hearing,
his counsel moved for a competency hearing after a psychiatric
evaluation had been performed on him. At the disposition hearing, the
court granted the motion for a competency evaluation. An arraignment
hearing on the VOP was set for a few days later. At that arraignment, the
court recognized that a pending competency evaluation requires that
proceedings be stayed under section 985.19, but found that it was
authorized to enforce conditions of release.
The trial court also
proceeded to arraign him on the VOP charges over his objection. On the
following day the court adjudicated him in indirect contempt of court for
failing to abide by his probation rules. The court sentenced him to five
days detention, permitting his temporary release upon obtaining an
appointment with a neurologist and to return after the appointment to
fulfill the remainder of the five days detention. Upon release, he was
placed on home detention and required to wear an electronic monitoring
ankle bracelet.
The court erred in proceeding with the VOP arraignment after it had
previously granted the motion for a competency evaluation. M.A.’s
counsel, his probation officer, and the court all noted that there was
reason to believe that he may be incompetent. When the court has
reason to believe that the child in a delinquency case may be
incompetent to proceed, “the court … must stay all proceedings and order
an evaluation of the child’s mental condition.” [e.s.] § 985.19(1), Fla.
Stat. (2007). Rule 8.095(2) adds that:
If at any time prior to or during the adjudicatory hearing or
hearing on a violation of juvenile probation the court has
reasonable grounds to believe the child named in the petition
may be incompetent to proceed with an adjudicatory
hearing, the court on its own motion or motion of counsel for
the child or the state shall immediately stay the proceedings
and fix a time for a hearing for the determination of the
child's mental condition. [e.s.]
Rule 8.095(2), Fla. R. Juv. P. (2007).
We agree that in spite of a pending competency evaluation a child may
nevertheless be placed in secure detention before disposition of the new
VOP charge when it appears that the child may be violating pre-existing
conditions of release. See, e.g., J.W. v. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 742
So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (child has committed serious felonies
and is extreme risk to others). Here the court stated no written reasons;
nor does the record show any particular type of serious danger to others.
In fact, the Probation Officer recommended probation for the disposition
on the VOP charge, not detention, and the State Attorney joined in the
recommendation. We also note that if the trial court determines that a
competency evaluation should be done immediately because the child is
a danger to himself or others, the trial court could consider proceeding
under the Baker Act.
The lower court erred in failing to follow section 985.19 and rule
8.095 by staying proceedings on the VOP charge pending a competency
evaluation.
SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
-2-
*
*
*
Petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Peter D. Blanc, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 2007CJ003280/2359.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Daniel Cohen and Deneka
Cummings-Garcia, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for
petitioner.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent State of
Florida.
Final upon release.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.