Palm Beach County Sheriff v. State, 4D01-2659.
| Decision Date | 17 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-2659.,4D01-2659. |
| Citation | 854 So.2d 278 |
| Parties | PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF, Ed Bieluch, Walter J. King, Alphonso A. Jackson, Bruce Lennis McCray, Vincent C. Gaines, and Walter W. Frymire, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fred H. Gelston of Fred H. Gelston, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant Palm Beach County Sheriff, Ed Bieluch.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Margaret Good-Earnest, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellants Walter J. King, Alphonso A. Jackson, Bruce Lennis McCray, Vincent C. Gaines, and Walter W. Frymire.
John J. Copelan, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
The issue in this case is whether a sheriff is entitled to bring a writ of mandamus to recover expenses from the Department of Children and Families (the Department) when that agency fails to place or take custody of an incarcerated, incompetent criminal defendant after the fifteen-day period described in section 916.107(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). We hold that mandamus will not support the recovery of such expenses and affirm.
This case began with five criminal defendants determined to be incompetent to proceed, either because of mental retardation, pursuant to sections 916.106(12) and 916.302, Florida Statutes (2001), or mental illness pursuant to sections 916.106(11) and 916.12, Florida Statutes (2001). The trial court committed all five defendants to the Department for placement in a treatment facility.
On March 19, 2001, the five defendants separately filed emergency petitions for writs of habeas corpus seeking release from the Palm Beach County Jail on the ground that each was being illegally detained, because the Department had failed to take custody of them within fifteen days of commitment as mandated by section 916.107(1)(a). Alternatively, each defendant asked the trial court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to secure their placement in a treatment facility.
The Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Ed Bieluch, responded to the petitions, arguing that his office should not bear any financial responsibility for housing or caring for the defendants after the expiration of the fifteen-day period. The Sheriff cross-petitioned against the Department for a writ of mandamus (1) requiring the Department to immediately assume care of the defendants, (2) awarding attorney's fees and costs under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001), and (3) forcing the Department to reimburse the Sheriff for all monies expended on housing and caring for the defendants, from the expiration of the fifteen-day period until their removal by the Department.
On March 28, 2001, the trial court conducted a consolidated evidentiary hearing on the defendants' petitions. The Department presented evidence demonstrating that it did not have the available bed space to house either the mentally retarded or the mentally ill defendants, largely due to the lack of funding by the legislature. The Sheriff argued that the Department had failed to request additional funding for more bed space; that it had enough space to add beds; and that the Department was well aware of its statutory duty to add additional beds.
On March 30, 2001, the trial court denied the defendants' petitions for writs of habeas corpus and granted their request for a writ of mandamus against the Department. Relying on Miller v. Carson, 524 F.Supp. 1174 (M.D.Fla.1981), and Pierce County Office of Involuntary Commitment v. Western State Hospital, 97 Wash.2d 264, 644 P.2d 131 (1982), the trial court concluded that the lack of bed space did not justify the Department's refusal to take custody of the defendants.
The trial court rejected the Department's argument that it could not comply with such an order. The court concluded that it was possible to expand bed space; that the Department had chosen not to budget funds to build room for bed expansion; that the Department had not exhausted its mental health budget for the fiscal year; that the Department was able to seek emergency funding; and that the Department had shown only that it was inconvenient or impractical for it to assume custody of the defendants. Thus, the Department was ordered to immediately advise the Sheriff's Office where to deliver the defendants, and that if the Department failed to do so, the Sheriff's Office would deliver the defendants to the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee on April 2, 2001.
The Department immediately moved for an emergency stay of the order pending appeal. However, since it was able to place each defendant in a treatment facility, it did not appeal the trial court's order.
On May 17, 2001, the trial court held a hearing on the Sheriff's cross-petition for writ of mandamus seeking attorney's fees and costs, and "reimbursement" for the cost of housing and caring for the defendants from day sixteen until the day the Department assumed custody of the defendants.
On May 24, 2001, the trial court denied the Sheriff's request for reimbursement. It held that ordering reapportionment of funds from the Department to the Sheriff would infringe upon the legislature's exclusive authority to appropriate funds. Relying on Miller, the court also ruled that regardless of the term used to define such a transfer, "the remedy sought by Sheriff Bieluch is in essence a request for monetary damages" which lacked any statutory authorization.
We affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Mandamus is a narrow remedy which does not allow a court to reach into the legislative sphere and reallocate funds between local and state governments. As the supreme court has written:
Florida law is well settled that mandamus may be used only to enforce a right that is both clear and certain. Mandamus may not be used to establish the existence of such a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law.
Fla. League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So.2d 397, 400-01 (Fla.1992) (citations omitted).
The Sheriff's right to reimbursement is neither clear nor certain. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Connor
...1976) (sovereign immunity barred attempt to garnish State, which owed money to judgment debtor); see also Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff v. State, 854 So.2d 278, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (sovereign immunity barred Sherriff's action for reimbursement from State for housing defendants that were supp......
-
State v. Everette, 3D04-2324.
...to the dissent's suggestion, section 916.107(10)(a), Florida Statutes, does apply in the instant case. See Palm Beach Co. Sheriff v. State, 854 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(Department was ordered to advise the Sheriff's office where to deliver the defendants, who were determined to be inco......
-
Cohen v. West Boca Medical Center, Inc., No. 4D02-712
... ... Graham, of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and Brian J. Glick of Glick Law ... ...