Jones v. O'Connor
| Decision Date | 06 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 34757,34757 |
| Citation | 185 So.2d 167 |
| Parties | Donald Dwayne JONES, Petitioner, v. J. B. O'CONNOR, M.D., Superintendent, Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Paul B. Johnson, of Gregory, Cours, Paniello & Johnson, Tampa, for petitioner.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By an application for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner Jones seeks release from the Florida State Hospital.
We must decide whether the custody of the petitioner is subject to the restrictions prescribed by Section 917.01(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
On January 2, 1963, Jones was indicted for the crime of first degree murder. Pursuant to the recommendation of a committee of doctors, appointed under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Circuit Judge found that the petitioner was insane. He committed Jones to the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee, Florida. The order provided that he was 'to be held until further order of this court.' Section 917.01(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that no defendant committed to an institution under that section 'shall be released therefrom, without the consent of the court committing him.' The petitioner remains in the custody of the respondent pursuant to the above mentioned order.
On March 15, 1965, the state attorney filed a nolle prosequi in the original murder proceeding. He recited the examination by the committee of doctors and the findings to the effect that, when the offense was committed the petitioner was criminally insane. In view of these findings he concluded that 'prosecution is not justified'. Despite the foregoing, the circuit judge has declined to authorize either the temporary or permanent release of the petitioner when in the judgment of the staff of the Florida State Hospital he would otherwise be entitled thereto. We issued the writ and a response has been filed. The response reports 'that the petitioner is still insane but his mental condition has become stabilized * * *.' It is indicated that a release to the custody of petitioner's father on a trial basis appears justifiable. However, the respondent is confronted by the restrictive provision of the commitment order which precludes release, except with permission of the committing court. Such permission of the court declines to give, despite the nolle prosequi and regardless of the medical judgment of the respondent and the hospital staff.
By his memorandum in support of his response, the respondent concedes that the entry of the nolle prosequi terminated circuit court jurisdiction over the petitioner. It also effectively eliminated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Genung
...present time to pose a danger to others. See Oksten v. State, supra, and State v. Eaton, supra. 3 Petitioner's reliance on Jones v. O'Connor, 185 So.2d 167 (Fla.1966), and Trippodo v. Rogers, 54 So.2d 64 (Fla.1951), as authority for his release is misplaced as evidenced by the facts thereof......
-
State v. Heidrick
...Florida Supreme Court had the opportunity to address a similar issue in Trippodo v. Rogers, 54 So.2d 64 (Fla.1951), and Jones v. O'Connor, 185 So.2d 167 (Fla.1966). In Trippodo and Jones, the trial courts found that the defendants were insane and incapable of standing trial. The defendants ......