Ibur v. State
Citation | 765 So.2d 275 |
Decision Date | 16 August 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 1D00-0208.,1D00-0208. |
Parties | Jonathan F. IBUR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
We find that the hearing officer reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to testify at his hearing for involuntary hospitalization. Because involuntary commitment is a substantial deprivation of liberty at which fundamental due process protections must attach, the patient cannot be denied the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, and to be heard.1 Denial of the due process right to be heard prior to deprivation of one's liberty is fundamental error which may be raised on appeal even if not preserved below. The error cannot be considered harmless, because the fundamental fairness of the commitment proceeding is called into question.
The order of commitment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings which accord the appellant due process of law.
1.See Chalk v. State 443 So.2d 421 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), in which the court held that the due process rights of a patient involuntarily committed to a mental institution were violated when his trial counsel was not allowed to present a closing argument, and that such a patient has a right to closing argument "regardless of the length of the hearing or the apparent simplicity of the issues presented." See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) ( ); Humphrey v. Cady, 405, U.S. 504, 92 S.Ct. 1048, 31 L.Ed.2d 394 (1972) (); Shuman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1978) ( ); In re Beverly, 342 So.2d 481 (Fla.1977) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ontiberos
...liberty interest at stake in an involuntary civil commitment.” Jenkins, 271 Va. at 16, 624 S.E.2d 453; see also Ibur v. State, 765 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla.Dist.App.2000) (“Because involuntary commitment is a substantial deprivation of liberty at which fundamental due process protections must at......
-
G.T. v. Department of Children and Family Services
...liberty interest in being free from physical restraint. See Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93, 104 (Fla.2002)."); Ibur v. State, 765 So.2d 275, 276 & n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("Because involuntary commitment is a substantial deprivation of liberty at which fundamental due process protectio......
-
Doe v. State
...must attach, the patient cannot be denied the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, and to be heard." Ibur v. State , 765 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Individuals subject to Baker Act commitment hearings are entitled to the strict enforcement of their fundamental due pro......
-
L.S. v. State
...process encompasses the right to be heard, and the denial of that right has been held fundamental error. See, e.g. , Ibur v. State , 765 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("Denial of the due process right to be heard prior to deprivation of one's liberty is fundamental error which may be ......