State v. Phillips

Decision Date04 April 2013
Docket NumberNo. SC11–411.,SC11–411.
Citation119 So.3d 1233
PartiesSTATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Larry PHILLIPS, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Richard L. Polin, Chief–Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, Miami Criminal Appeals, Miami, FL, Robert Jay Krauss, Chief–Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, Tampa Criminal Appeals and Joseph Hwan–Yul Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Petitioner.

Kathleen A. Smith, Public Defender and Richard Reynolds Donnelly, Assistant Public Defender, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Cape Coral, FL, for Respondent.

QUINCE, J.

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in In re Commitment of Larry Phillips, 69 So.3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). In its decision the district court ruled upon the following question, which the court has certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE STATE HAVE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS ACT AGAINST AN INMATE WHO IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE BASED ON A CORRECTED AWARD OF GAIN TIME?

Id. at 956. We have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We hold that because Phillips' sentence had expired at the time the State initiated commitment proceedings under the Jimmy Ryce Act, Phillips was not in lawful custody, and consequently, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the commitment petition. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative, and approve the Second District's decision rendered below.

FACTS

The following facts, which are not in dispute, come from the Second District Court of Appeal's opinion below:

In February 1990 Phillips was arrested on a fugitive warrant in Georgia and extradited to Collier County where he was charged with three counts of committing a lewd and lascivious assault. After posting bond in Florida, Phillips was returned to Georgia for prosecution of a separate offense. In July 1990 a Georgia court sentenced Phillips to three years in prison followed by seventeen years of probation for that offense. Phillips was paroled in March 1992 and returned to Florida to resolve the Collier County case.

In April 1992 the Collier County circuit court sentenced Phillips to two years in prison followed by ten years of probation. The court awarded Phillips two years of credit for the time he had served in Georgia prior to his return to Florida. This effectively erased the two-year prison sentence, and Phillips was processed in and out of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) on the same day that he was sentenced. Phillips thereafter returned to Georgia to serve both his Georgia and Florida probationary terms.

Less than two years later, Phillips violated both his Georgia probation and his Florida probation by committing a new law offense [aggravated child molestation] in Georgia. A Georgia court revoked his probation and sentenced him to prison. In January 2004 Phillips was paroled from prison in Georgia and extradited to Florida to face the violation of probation charge in Collier County. [On June 10, 2004,] Phillips admitted to violating his Florida probation, and the court sentenced him to 5.5 years in prison with 177 days of jail credit [for the time Phillips spent in custody prior to the revocation of his probation]. [On April 6, 2005,] Phillips filed a [pro se Motion to Correct Sentence to Reflect Prison Time Credit] pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Phillips requested that a Florida postconviction court award him credit against his prison sentence for the two years of credit for time served in Georgia that the Florida court had awarded [on his original sentence] in 1992.[O]n September [30,] 2005 the postconviction court granted the motion and ordered the DOC to award Phillips the original jail and prison credit in addition to the credit for the 177 days.... 1

On December 6, 2005, Phillips was released from the DOC and was transferred to the Florida Civil Commitment Center pursuant to section 394.9135(1), Florida Statutes (2005). The Department of Children and Family Services placed a seventy-two hour hold on Phillips and began its evaluation to determine whether he met the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Act. [On December 12, 2005,] [t]he multidisciplinary team timely recommended civil commitment to the state attorney, who [then] filed a commitment petition [the same day].

In June 2009 Phillips, who was still in custody but had not been to trial, filed a motion to dismiss the commitment petition in the circuit court [based on Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101 (Fla.2008), which held that an individual must be in lawful custody when commitment proceedings are initiated in order for the circuit court to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the commitment petition filed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act]. Phillips argued that he was not in lawful custody at the time commitment proceedings were initiated on December 6, 2005, because his sentence had expired on August 31, 2005, based on the postconviction court's determination of entitlement to two years of prison credit against Phillips' sentence of 5.5 years. Phillips relied on an affidavit executed by a DOC administrator which stated that, with the application of the prior prison and jail credit, Phillips' sentence expired on August 31, 2005. The DOC included the award of 420 days of basic gain time and 234 days of incentive gain time in making this calculation.

[On November 16, 2009,] [t]he circuit court denied the motion to dismiss based on its determination that Phillips was in lawful custody when commitment proceedings were initiated because [t]he time period from August 31, 2005 to December 6, 2005 was well within the legal term of [Phillips'] sentence of 5 1/2 years.”

In re Commitment of Larry Phillips, 69 So.3d 951, 952–53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (footnotes omitted). The circuit court noted that absent gain-time, [Phillips] would not have been released until approximately 1 1/2 years after the August 31, 2005 recalculated release date.”

On January 19, 2010, Phillips filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Second District Court of Appeal, contending that because his sentence legally expired on August 31, 2005, he was not in lawful custody when commitment proceedings were initiated in December 2005. Id. at 953. The district court found that the sentence of five and one-half years for the violation of his probation was illegal because the court failed to award prior jail and prison credit. Id. at 955. Applying Larimore, the Second District held:

Phillips cannot be committed pursuant to the Act if he was not in lawful custody when the State initiated commitment proceedings.... After the postconviction court determined that the prior prison and jail credits should be applied to correct the illegal sentence, the DOC recalculated Phillips' sentence and found that it had expired as of August 31, 2005. Thus, Phillips was not in lawful custody when the State initiated commitment proceedings in December 2005.

...

Because Phillips was not in lawful custody at the time that proceedings under the Act were commenced, the circuit court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the commitment petition filed against Phillips under the Act.

Id. at 954–56. Accordingly, the Second District granted Phillips' petition for writ of prohibition, dismissed the State's commitment petition with prejudice, and ordered the immediate release of Phillips from any custody attributable to the State's initiation of commitment proceedings under the Act. Id. at 956.

On March 8, 2011, we accepted jurisdiction of this case. On March 22, 2011, the Second District granted the State's motion to stay issuance of the mandate. On October 10, 2011, after oral argument was held, we issued an order approving the Second District's decision below, lifted the stay, and ordered Phillips' immediate release from the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). We now explain the reasoning behind our decision to approve the district court's decision below.

ANALYSIS

The specific issue we are to decide is whether an inmate is in lawful custody at the time the State commences commitment proceedings pursuant to section 394.9135(1), Florida Statutes (2005), of the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, commonly known as the Jimmy Ryce Act (the Act), when the inmate's sentence has actually expired due to postconviction credit for time previously served and/or an award of gain-time. The standard of review for the pure question of law before us is de novo. D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003). Before deciding this issue, we first note the pertinent provisions of the Act and review our case law which has interpreted the Act to require lawful custody. We conclude by commenting on the due process rights of individuals who are detained pursuant to the Act.

The Jimmy Ryce Act

The Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, sections 916.31–.49, Florida Statutes (1999), became effective on January 1, 1999. See ch. 98–64, § 24, at 455, Laws of Fla. Effective May 26, 1999, the Act was superseded, amended and renumbered to sections 394.910–.932, Florida Statutes (1999). See ch. 99–222, § 1, at 961, § 29, at 972, Laws of Fla. The Act “create[d] a civil commitment procedure for the long-term care and treatment of sexually violent predators.” 2§ 394.910, Fla. Stat. (1999). A sexually violent predator is any person who [h]as been convicted of a sexually violent offense; and [s]uffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.” § 394.912(10)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (2005). The authority given to the State so that it may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fitts v. Furst, Case No. 2D18-538
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 Septiembre 2019
    ...of section 394.915 remained the same, and includes the reference to ‘respondent taken into custody’ "); see also State v. Phillips, 119 So. 3d 1233, 1241 n.10 (Fla. 2013) (discussing the statutes at issue in Larimore and noting that "[t]he failure to amend the title of section 394.915 to co......
  • Gering v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 25 Julio 2018
    ...trial? Because this question requires us to construe a statute and rules of procedure, our standard of review is de novo. State v. Phillips, 119 So.3d 1233 (Fla. 2013).The Florida Legislature enacted the Jimmy Ryce Act for the purpose of creating "a civil commitment procedure for the long-t......
  • Burt v. Poppell, Case No. 3:20-cv-3-LC-MJF
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • 29 Septiembre 2020
    ...initiated his commitment proceeding in 2014. (Doc. 10, Ex. 4 (discussing Latimore v. State, 2 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 2008), and State v. Phillips, 119 So. 3d 1233 (Fla. 2013))). The state circuit court denied the motion on March 15, 2018. (Doc. 10, Ex. 5). On July 13, 2018, Burt filed a counseled......
  • Ridenhour v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 2022
    ...for persons in Appellant's position to receive a trial, even a jury trial. § 394.916(1), (2), & (5), Fla. Stat.; cf., State v. Phillips , 119 So. 3d 1233, 1244 (Fla. 2013) (recognizing civil commitment to be a "significant deprivation of liberty" that requires due process protections). But ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT