Department of Corrections v. Harrison
Decision Date | 25 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 5D04-3665.,5D04-3665. |
Citation | 896 So.2d 868 |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Petitioner, v. Daniel Taft HARRISON, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sara K. Cunningham, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondent.
The Department of Corrections seeks certiorari review of a circuit court directive contained in probation orders pertaining to Daniel Harrison, that requires the Department to pay for an interpreter for Harrison's sex offender treatment. We grant the petition.
Harrison entered guilty pleas to two kidnapping offenses and two sexual battery offenses in Brevard County Circuit Court Cases Nos. 99-10913 and 99-10993. He was sentenced to time served and was placed on probation for life. The probation orders in both cases require him to participate in a sex offender treatment program. However, Harrison is hearing impaired and will need the assistance of an interpreter in order to participate in a sexual offender treatment program. Thus, the judge directed that the Department pay for an interpreter for Harrison.
The Department argues that by issuing this order the court encroached upon the Legislature's authority to appropriate state funds through duly enacted statutes1 because under current law, sex offenders are required to pay for such treatment and there is no provision authorizing the Department to pay for an interpreter. Section 948.30(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2004) provides as a standard condition of probation for sexual offenders, the "active participation in and successful completion of a sex offender treatment program with therapists specially trained to treat sex offenders, at the probationer's . . . expense."
We first address the question of whether the Department has standing to raise this issue in the appellate court since it was not a party to the underlying criminal case. In similar situations, the Department of Children and Families has successfully sought certiorari review in cases where a trial court allegedly exceeded its judicial authority by encroaching on the powers of the executive branch by ordering it to take some action not permitted under the law. See, e.g., Department of Children and Families v. C.R.C., 867 So.2d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ( ); Department of Children and Families v. Harter, 861 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ( ); Department of Children and Families v. E.M.S., 841 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ( ). In these cases, the Department was not a party to the underlying delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecution.
The Department of Corrections sought certiorari review in our court in a case where, like this one, it was directed to pay for an interpreter to assist a deaf defendant undergoing court ordered sex offender treatment. See Department of Corrections v. Bergman, 890 So.2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The certiorari petition in that case was dismissed because there was no reviewable order in that case, only a court minutes form. See generally, State v. Wagner, 863 So.2d 1224 (Fla.2004).
In Department of Corrections v. Grubbs, 884 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the Department successfully obtained certiorari review of a circuit court order which required it to pay for a sex offender treatment program for a deaf client. The court concluded that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering the Department to pay for the program. It concluded the judicial branch may not interfere with the legislative...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Florida Dep't of Children & Families v. Y.C., 3D11–1899.
...nothing to do with them. 6. We also agree that certiorari review is the appropriate vehicle for review. See Dep't of Corrs. v. Harrison, 896 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[T]he Department of Children and Families has successfully sought certiorari review in cases where a trial court ......
-
Fla. Dep't of Children & Families v. J.B.
...1141 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding, in a similar case, that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review); Dep't of Corrs. v. Harrison, 896 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[T]he Department of Children and Families has successfully sought certiorari review in cases where a trial cour......
-
Armstrong v. State, 5D03-2806.
... ... order requires payment of $30.00 for substance abuse testing as required by the Department of Correction. This condition was not orally pronounced and appeared for the first time in the ... ...
-
Orange Cnty. v. State, 5D15–3140.
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (Carroll, J., dissenting), adopted by Dade County v. Baker, 265 So.2d 700, 701 (Fla.1972) ; Dep't of Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So.2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; Dep't of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA ...