Johnson v. Feder

• Decision Date: 20 March 1986
• Docket Number: No. 66554,66554
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 120 Eugene JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Richard Yale FEDER, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 409

485 So.2d 409

11 Fla. L. Weekly 120

Eugene JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Richard Yale FEDER, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 66554.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 20, 1986.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Randi Klayman Lazarus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.

BARKETT, Justice.

This cause is before the Court on petition for review because the decision below, Johnson v. Feder, 463 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), conflicts with McShay v. State, 447 So.2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash the decision below and adopt the holding of the Second District in McShay.

Petitioner, Eugene Johnson, was found not guilty by reason of insanity on two separate murder charges in 1981. He was committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for involuntary hospitalization pursuant to section 916.15, Florida Statutes (1981), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.217.

In April of 1984, the hospital medical personnel responsible for reviewing petitioner's condition submitted a report to the trial court stating that petitioner continued to meet the statutory criteria for involuntary hospitalization. Petitioner contested that conclusion and moved for the appointment of independent psychiatric experts and a court hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.218. The requested relief was denied by the trial court, and petitioner then applied for a writ of mandamus to the Third District Court of Appeal.

On appeal, petitioner claimed that his indefinite commitment to the state hospital without an opportunity to be heard in court violated his federal constitutional right ¹ to due process and his rights under the above-cited statute and rule. The Third District denied his request for relief, holding that the right to a judicial hearing is triggered only when the hospital medical staff recommends release. Since the medical staff recommended continued involuntary hospitalization, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to a hearing. We cannot agree.

We are compelled by well-established norms of statutory construction to choose that interpretation of statutes and rules which renders their provisions meaningful. Statutory interpretations that render statutory provisions superfluous "are, and should be, disfavored." Patagonia Corporation v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 517 F.2d 803, 813 (9th Cir.1975). See also Smith v. Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators, 427 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla.1983) (courts must assume that statutory provisions are intended to have some useful purpose). Courts are not to presume that a given statute employs "useless language." Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So.2d 470, 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

After applying these rules of statutory construction and carefully considering the applicable statute and rule, we conclude that both section 916.15(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.218 require a judicial hearing, if requested, whether the hospital administrator recommends release or continued hospitalization.

The hospital administrator's report which precipitated petitioner's motion for a judicial hearing and examination by independent experts was prepared pursuant to section 916.15(2) which provides that reports are to be filed by the hospital administrator on three separate occasions:

1. No later than six months after the date of admission;

2. Prior to the end of any period of extended hospitalization;

3. At any time the administrator determines the patient no longer meets the criteria for continued hospitalization.

The legislature distinguished between "the end of any period of extended hospitalization" and such "time [as] the administrator determines the patient no longer [requires] hospitalization", and required a report in both instances. By drawing this distinction, it is clear that the legislature intended to require a report regardless of whether or not the hospital administrator determined that the patient continued to meet the criteria for further commitment. To conclude otherwise would render this distinction meaningless.

The provision requiring reports is followed by subsection (3) of section 916.15 which discusses the requisite judicial hearings. Subsection (3) provides that both the patient and the state have the right to a hearing before the committing court in "all proceedings" under section 916.15. ² The only "proceedings" contemplated by the section are the initial determination by the court concerning the need for involuntary hospitalization and the filing of the required reports by the hospital administrator. Therefore, hearings are mandated after each report, if requested.

The same procedures are discussed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.218. The rule initially sets forth two occasions on which reports must be filed:

1. No later than six months from the date of admission;

2. At any time the administrator determines the patient no longer meets the criteria for continued hospitalization.

Section 3.218(a) then provides that the "court shall hold a hearing within 30 days of the receipt of any such report." At this point in the text, the rule addresses the third time period and provides that the "same procedure [i.e., report followed by judicial hearing] shall be repeated prior to the expiration of each additional one year period."

Thus, it can be seen that both the statute and the rule require a filed report and a judicial hearing following the hospital administrator's annual determination of an insanity acquittee's continued need for involuntary hospitalization, regardless of the substance of that determination. ³

To interpret the statute as respondent urges would make meaningless much of the content of both statute and rule. For example, the filing of those annual reports which...