Atkinson v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-3243.,2D00-3243. |
| Citation | 791 So.2d 537 |
| Parties | Daniel C. ATKINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Howard L. Dimmig, II, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dyann W. Beaty, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
Daniel C. Atkinson petitions this court for a writ of prohibition preventing the trial court from hearing the civil commitment petition that is pending against him pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Involuntary Civil Commitment for Sexually Violent Predators' Treatment and Care Act (hereinafter "the Act"). See §§ 916.31— 916.49, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).1 Atkinson argues that the Act does not apply to him because he was not in lawful custody on its effective date, and therefore, the trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain the commitment petition. We agree, grant the petition for writ of prohibition, and direct the trial court to discharge Atkinson. However, because we acknowledge that this is an issue of great public importance, we also certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court.
Atkinson was sentenced on September 25, 1996, to five years in prison for an offense that qualifies him for commitment under the Act. In early 2000, Atkinson sought resentencing pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), and as a result was resentenced to twenty-one months' prison on May 25, 2000. Under the new sentence, his prison term would have expired (even without an award of any gain time) on or around June 25, 1998—some six months before the effective date of the Act. Atkinson argues that therefore he was not in lawful custody on January 1, 1999, the effective date of the Act, and the Act does not apply to him.
Atkinson relies entirely on section 916.45, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998),2 which provides in pertinent part that, "[s]ections 916.31-916.49 apply to all persons currently in custody who have been convicted of a sexually violent offense...." Atkinson argues that this custody requirement must be read to require lawful custody. We agree. Courts are constrained as a basic tenet of statutory interpretation to avoid a construction of a statute that would result in unreasonable, harsh, or absurd consequences. See Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691 (Fla.1997). To read the Act as the State suggests to require only actual custody, regardless of its lawfulness, would produce such a result and would be contrary to public policy. We therefore hold that insofar as the Act applies to "all persons currently in custody," it is limited to persons who were in lawful custody on its effective date.3
Atkinson also argues for the first time in his reply brief that the State illegally detained him for fourteen days beyond the expiration of his sentence in order to file a commitment petition against him. While we condemn such action and have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, 3D05-1277.
...this issue. We determine we have jurisdiction under Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. See Atkinson v. State, 791 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), aff'd, 831 So.2d 172 2. Ward was advised during his 1976 plea colloquy that if he went to trial and was found guilty on a......
-
State v. Atkinson
...OFFENSES BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT WHO WERE NOT IN LAWFUL CUSTODY ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT? Atkinson v. State, 791 So.2d 537, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the Atkinson was sentenced on......
-
Ward v. State
...defendant does not qualify for civil commitment under the Act as a matter of law. See majority opinion at 480 n. 1; Atkinson v. State, 791 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), aff'd, 831 So.2d 172 On January 1, 1999, the Jimmy Ryce Act went into effect. It created a civil commitment procedure......
-
Braine v. State, Case No. 2D17-807
...the same transaction’ ....").Mr. Braine next argues that his statutory construction avoids absurd results. See Atkinson v. State, 791 So.2d 537, 538-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("Courts are constrained as a basic tenet of statutory interpretation to avoid a construction of a statute that would re......
-
Beyond Hendricks: the United States Supreme Court Decision in Kansas v. Crane and Other Issues Concerning Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act
...(2001) (holding that Act did not require respondent to be in "lawful" custody at time petition for civil commitment was filed). 239. 791 So.2d 537 (Fla. App. 2001). 240. Id. at 539. Because the Court of Appeals believed this issue was of "great public importance," the Court of Appeals certi......